Rail Reform Bill published

[Bletchleyite]

In the technical sense the railway has been far less innovative in the post 1993 period than the pre 1993 period.
Indeed even the big economic change of recent decades, advanced purchase tickets, were pioneered in the dying days of the BR era.

Yes and no. BR did do a small number of quota controlled tickets e.g. the Apex Return, but these required the same quota in both directions and you had to go to a booking office or travel agent to get one so it was a huge faff.

I would say today's Advance was really pioneered by Virgin Trains in the late 1990s as the "Virgin Value" fares, which were the first to bring in a significant number of price levels, to introduce changeability as standard (BR Apex were not changeable nor refundable), to use the same name for all those levels (a significant simplification) and to sell them as singles. This was happening roughly alongside (but slightly before in some ways) the low cost airline revolution that also went that way. The "Virgin Train Line" (yes, the forerunner of the Forum's "love to hate" ticketing service) was probably also instrumental in their popularity. Virgin were also first to offer these in First Class.

I think they also pioneered the name "Advance", using it for higher priced quota controlled tickets on peak time trains which would have made people laugh out loud if they'd called them "value".

 

[RailWonderer]

What I don't understand is why every government needs a 'bold vision' for railways. Don't they just need small and gradual but effective improvements like electrification, overhauling of stations and adding capacity through updated signalling and infrastructure? This window dressing of of GBR sounds useless to me, and has so far only resulted in slightly more ugly typeface applied to a few stations. Fare simplification is the most obvious smokescreen and the rest just falls apart. Still, the Tories won't even get a bill through before they're kicked out the door come November.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes and no. BR did do a small number of quota controlled tickets e.g. the Apex Return, but these required the same quota in both directions and you had to go to a booking office or travel agent to get one so it was a huge faff.

I find it somewhat hard to imagine a world in which BR carried on and didn't expand the use of advance tickets in a similar way to the way the privatised railway has done.

We'd also have been spared the phase where each TOC gave them different names (remember the FGW "firstminute" name?) and had different terms and conditions (for example GNER (or whoever it was at the time) only started accepting railcards on their advance tickets when the rules were harmonised across the industry).

A lot of things that people point to as private sector innovation the railways seem to be either things that started under BR, or would have happened anyway (e.g. internet sales, e-tickets etc.)

On the technical side, I genuinely thought that BR research was innovative at the time.

 

[LUYMun]

What I don't understand is why every government needs a 'bold vision' for railways. Don't they just need small and gradual but effective improvements like electrification, overhauling of stations and adding capacity through updated signalling and infrastructure? This window dressing of of GBR sounds useless to me, and has so far only resulted in slightly more ugly typeface applied to a few stations. Fare simplification is the most obvious smokescreen and the rest just falls apart. Still, the Tories won't even get a bill through before they're kicked out the door come November.

The bolder vision is about the reorganisation of the railways in order to make the improvements you've listed more efficiently. A "small and gradual" improvement government would reluctantly offer is placing an OLR to the franchises and not doing anything to eliminate fragmentation of resources and staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Add to the list - Railcard acceptance on Virgin Value tickets was also pioneered by Virgin Trains. Not always in a good way but they were without doubt the most innovative 1990s TOC. GNER by contrast seemed loved by many but did very little bar paint the existing Mk4s a nice colour of blue and continue as BR basically was, and similarly FGW was just a continuation of BR under different ownership and an ugly "fag packet" livery.

 

[AdamWW]

Add to the list - Railcard acceptance on Virgin Value tickets was also pioneered by Virgin Trains. Not always in a good way but they were without doubt the most innovative 1990s TOC. GNER by contrast seemed loved by many but did very little bar paint the existing Mk4s a nice colour of blue and continue as BR basically was, and similarly FGW was just a continuation of BR under different ownership and an ugly "fag packet" livery.

Ah I hadn't realised that Apex tickets were full fare only. Bit surprised to be honest.

I thought as well as Apex there was another one (I forget the name) that started out essentially as a quota controlled inflexible saver ticket at supersaver prices.

As for GNER, bringing back the 89 might be seen as a bit innovative... Also an early adopter of on-train wifi, I think.

And just before their demise they brought in a new (albeit third party) booking engine that, to me at least, seemed a vast improvement over the other ones around at the time.

And it was a very nice shade of blue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought as well as Apex there was another one (I forget the name) that started out essentially as a quota controlled inflexible saver ticket at supersaver prices.

There was, yes, it was called...wait for it...the SuperAdvance! (There was also one called the Advance which was a few quid cheaper than the Saver - I guess the real forerunner!). The SuperAdvance was quite handy because it was valid Fridays and summer Saturdays, but the SuperSaver wasn't.

Either the quota was massive or it was just an advance purchase requirement without a quota for those, as I don't recall ever failing to get one, whereas getting an Apex (min 7 days before) was unlikely and a SuperApex (min 14 days before) basically impossible.

Actually that was another Virgin innovation - all bands available to the day before as long as quota remained.

 

[HSTEd]

What I don't understand is why every government needs a 'bold vision' for railways. Don't they just need small and gradual but effective improvements like electrification, overhauling of stations and adding capacity through updated signalling and infrastructure? This window dressing of of GBR sounds useless to me, and has so far only resulted in slightly more ugly typeface applied to a few stations. Fare simplification is the most obvious smokescreen and the rest just falls apart. Still, the Tories won't even get a bill through before they're kicked out the door come November.

Well they've been doing that for nigh on twenty years at this point.

It's not really gone particularly well.
Electrification costs keep climbing, the signalling obsolesence tidal wave continues to get steeper and closer, the post coronavirus changes in use and numerous other issues.
The status quo is not amazing.

 

[RailWonderer]

It's not really gone particularly well.
Electrification costs keep climbing, the signalling obsolesence tidal wave continues to get steeper and closer, the post coronavirus changes in use and numerous other issues.
The status quo is not amazing.

Electrification has been done in stops and starts so efficiency is lost, and the same with signalling. Little but often would be far more effective at improving processes and their given costs so if this new system would be better at implementing that kind of policy it will be a good thing.

 

[J-2739]

Sorry if I've missed something, but why has the UK seemingly gone in the opposite direction to the rest of Europe, who has sought to keep the tracks and trains separate?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry if I've missed something, but why has the UK seemingly gone in the opposite direction to the rest of Europe, who has sought to keep the tracks and trains separate?

Because...

(1) That's a stupid idea
(2) It's mandated by the EU

Separate accounting is required for Open Access so a fair price can be calculated for access, but an actually separate organisation to the main state operator just introduces cost and inefficiency.

The EU does some very silly things to induce artificial markets in things that work better as state monopolies, this is one of the worst things about it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It does frustrate me that the best part of ten years on from the Virgin brand leaving the railway, some still seem desperate to blow smoke up Richard Branson's... er, "funnel".
By the end he was little more than Brian Souter's hype-man.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Sorry if I've missed something, but why has the UK seemingly gone in the opposite direction to the rest of Europe, who has sought to keep the tracks and trains separate?

Mostly, they are separated but still under the same state-owned umbrella (RFF, ADIF, DB Infra, Prorail etc).
We were the only state to fully privatise infrastructure (Railtrack), but that experiment ended after 5 years and NR is now an arm of the DfT.
Our regulatory regime still separates operation (TOCs) from infrastructure (NR).
The main aim was to have competition (at bid time) for TOC contracts.
That's also the aim in the EU.

 

[The exile]

Because...

(1) That's a stupid idea
(2) It's mandated by the EU

Separate accounting is required for Open Access so a fair price can be calculated for access, but an actually separate organisation to the main state operator just introduces cost and inefficiency.

The EU does some very silly things to induce artificial markets in things that work better as state monopolies, this is one of the worst things about it.

Is it not, however, the case that we were the “prototype” for the EU division of infrastructure and operator and one of its prime movers?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it not, however, the case that we were the “prototype” for the EU division of infrastructure and operator and one of its prime movers?

Perhaps, but it was still stupid.

 

[yorksrob]

Might as well wait until after the next GE which to see what actually happens.

 

[AdamWW]

Is it not, however, the case that we were the “prototype” for the EU division of infrastructure and operator and one of its prime movers?

That was certainly my understanding. We did seem to be the most keen to introduce the arrangement.

 

[The exile]

Perhaps, but it was still stupid.

Fully agree!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Perhaps, but it was still stupid.

The aim was to curb the monopolistic power of state corporations, not just rail.
I'm sure we were in the vanguard of persuading the EU commission to break up the monopolies (in Labour times as well as Tory).
It did lead to some silly outcomes in places, but it's not a bad thing for the monopolies to have been skewered.
Does anybody want to go back to BT's near monopoly, or BA's?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, but applying that to BR makes the error of thinking rail transport is the industry. It's not, it's transport, and the competitor is the car, which is so often ignored.

 

[HSTEd]

The aim was to curb the monopolistic power of state corporations, not just rail.

The railway is no less monopolistic than it was then.
Even if you accept the idea that state (or other) monopolies are inherently abhorrent, none have actually been broken up.

Either rail is the industry, in which case there is still no meaningful competition since you either take the train offered by command of the state or don't, or transport is the industry and the monopoly never existed in the first place

Does anybody want to go back to BT's near monopoly, or BA's?

Well my experience of the "free market" Telecoms industry is not really much different to the experience in the BT era.
The only reason you don't have lots of people waiting months for phone lines any more is because no one is ordering new phone lines.

The private sector utilities are just as glacial in doing infrastructure type things as the state monopolies ever were. As I found out when I tried to have my gas and electricity moved and a new telecomms connection installed.

 

[AdamWW]

The railway is no less monopolistic than it was then.
Even if you accept the idea that state (or other) monopolies are inherently abhorrent, none have actually been broken up.

Either rail is the industry, in which case there is still no meaningful competition since you either take the train offered by command of the state or don't, or transport is the industry and the monopoly never existed in the first place


Well my experience of the "free market" Telecoms industry is not really much different to the experience in the BT era.
The only reason you don't have lots of people waiting months for phone lines any more is because no one is ordering new phone lines.

The private sector utilities are just as glacial in doing such things as the state monopolies ever were.

I'm not going to argue that fragmentation was the right approach, but the railway is a bit less monopolistic that it used to be, surely? There are a few open access operators, and also a few areas where TOCs genuinely compete.

Not for the majority of journeys, but in some cases there is some kind of competition.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not going to argue that fragmentation was the right approach, but the railway is a bit less monopolistic that it used to be, surely? There are a few open access operators, and also a few areas where TOCs genuinely compete.

Open access operators are specifically forbidden from providing meaningful competition with other rail operators by "anti-abstraction" clauses. If any occurs it is entirely by accident.

Not for the majority of journeys, but in some cases there is some kind of competition.

The "competition" is normally between products so different that I am skeptical they are truly in competition.
As an example, I don't think Chiltern truly competes with the WCML for London to Birmingham traffic in any meaningful sense.

Electrification has been done in stops and starts so efficiency is lost, and the same with signalling. Little but often would be far more effective at improving processes and their given costs so if this new system would be better at implementing that kind of policy it will be a good thing.

The problem is that the rail industry has repeatedly been given piles of money to end the stop-starts and then blown it to little effect.

The Great Western project was not curtailed because of an evil conspiracy against rail, it was curtailed because the project had blown through several times its budget and had pretty much failed.
Now the latest "offer" from the rail industry is that the government must pay for 2000stkm of electrification (~£10bn worth) and not dare do anything to curtail the programme for at least ten years - and maybe, just maybe, the industry will deign to get costs under control.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Open access operators are specifically forbidden from providing meaningful competition with other rail operators by "anti-abstraction" clauses. If any occurs it is entirely by accident.

That was the case, but Lumo is in practice competing with LNER. It claims to be competing with airlines, which it does too, just as LNER does, but it can't not be competing with LNER.

To be fair it was probably the first OAO that has run entirely on the route of an existing TOC without doing anything different like serving a station without a direct London service or with a poor one.

 

[AdamWW]

The "competition" is normally between products so different that I am skeptical they are truly in competition.
As an example, I don't think Chiltern truly competes with the WCML for London to Birmingham traffic in any meaningful sense.

Hmmm. If Chiltern carries significant traffic between Birmingham and London rather than just intermediate points (which I think it does), what is it doing if not competing? Anecdotally I was talking to someone a few weeks ago who uses Chiltern to get between Birmingham and London.

And the difference between the "products" that Chiltern and Avanti offer is surely smaller than that between Easyjet and LNER and I think they would normally be considered in competition for the London to Edinburgh market.

That was the case, but Lumo is in practice competing with LNER. It claims to be competing with airlines, which it does too, just as LNER does, but it can't not be competing with LNER.

Quite so.

Likewise if Grand Union were to start up between London and Carmarthen.

Also, being somewhat petty, I believe the rule was that open access services should not be "primarily abstractive" which is relevant given that my comment was only that the railways are a "bit" less monopolistic than they were under BR.

 

[43066]

The bolder vision is about the reorganisation of the railways in order to make the improvements you've listed more efficiently.

It’s nothing of the sort. The government has done absolutely nothing to reform the railways! For all the noise and fanfare about reform, they’ve literally not even passed the legislation to enable GBR, and the “bold vision” is irrelevant, because there’s essentially zero chance that this government will be in a position to actually implement it.

All they’ve done is make penny wise pound foolish cost savings that have wrecked reliability, while kicking the can on reform well and truly down the road.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Open access operators are specifically forbidden from providing meaningful competition with other rail operators by "anti-abstraction" clauses. If any occurs it is entirely by accident.
The "competition" is normally between products so different that I am skeptical they are truly in competition.
As an example, I don't think Chiltern truly competes with the WCML for London to Birmingham traffic in any meaningful sense.

The problem is that the rail industry has repeatedly been given piles of money to end the stop-starts and then blown it to little effect.
The Great Western project was not curtailed because of an evil conspiracy against rail, it was curtailed because the project had blown through several times its budget and had pretty much failed.
Now the latest "offer" from the rail industry is that the government must pay for 2000stkm of electrification (~£10bn worth) and not dare do anything to curtail the programme for at least ten years - and maybe, just maybe, the industry will deign to get costs under control.

I do agree with all that...
"Spending tomorrow's money to solve yesterday's problems" was a pithy quote from Stewart Joy's book ("The Train That Ran Away", 1973), about how BR spent the modernisation money voted in 1955.
He was part of the team that developed Barbara Castle's 1968 Transport Act, and was subsequently Chief Economist at the BRB.

And the latest example of railway fortunes squandered is HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmmm. If Chiltern carries significant traffic between Birmingham and London rather than just intermediate points (which I think it does), what is it doing if not competing? Anecdotally I was talking to someone a few weeks ago who uses Chiltern to get between Birmingham and London.

Chiltern and Avanti are definitely in competition. One offers "less comfortable but faster and more expensive", the other offers "more comfortable but slower and cheaper" - they are close enough to be offering that choice.

LNR as a London-Birmingham service is probably, by contrast, segmenting the market, i.e. most of its users would drive or go by coach, because it's so much slower.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Might as well wait until after the next GE which to see what actually happens.

There are some reports of the George Bradshaw lecture yesterday, where the rail minister Huw Merriman and his shadow Stephen Morgan gave presentations on the future of the rail industry.
Merriman obviously based his views on the Rail Reform draft bill published yesterday.
Morgan's only point of difference is the oft-repeated plan to bring private passenger TOC contracts in house at expiry.
But otherwise they had the same story, of a central management body at arm's length from DfT, encompassing Network Rail*.
Morgan didn't offer any plan to reduce fares (which is all the MSM are interested in).
Neither could say what the structure under GBR would be.
Morgan didn't mention freight, rolling stock or open access as far as I can see.

MSN

Labour has refused to confirm if rail fares will fall under its plan to renationalise train operation.
Shadow rail minister Stephen Morgan said the party wants passengers to get “the best possible fare” but would not pledge that ticket prices would be cut if the party wins the next general election.

More may emerge when people have seen the presentations and asked questions.

* though Andrew Haines is on record as saying recently that GBR "Won't be NR 2.0".

Edit: Link to the Rail Partners site where a recording of the event will be made available.

George Bradshaw Address: Election special, Tuesday 20 February 2024

The next Rail Partners George Bradshaw Address, an election special, will take place on Tuesday 20 February 2024

railpartners.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

There are some reports of the George Bradshaw lecture yesterday, where the rail minister Huw Merriman and his shadow Stephen Morgan gave presentations on the future of the rail industry.
Merriman obviously based his views on the Rail Reform draft bill published yesterday.
Morgan's only point of difference is the oft-repeated plan to bring passenger TOC contracts in house at expiry.
But otherwise they had the same story, of a central management body at arm's length from DfT, encompassing Network Rail*.
Morgan didn't offer any plan to reduce fares (which is all the MSM are interested in).
Neither could say what the structure under GBR would be.
Morgan didn't mention freight, rolling stock or open access as far as I can see.

MSN

More may emerge when people have seen the presentations and asked questions.

* though Andrew Haines is on record as saying recently that GBR "Won't be NR 2.0".

I doubt very much Labour will be giving much detail away, at least until manifesto time (no point getting it nicked).

I'd hope for something eyecatching/popular for passengers (as opposed to industry structure, which will be of secondary interest to most prospective passengers).