Verulamius
Member
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2014
- Messages
- 246
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
Is this the end of the current franchising regime? (Williams Review)
- Thread starter Verulamius
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
XCTurbostar
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 1,882
This effectively rules out Nationalisation (As we know it)
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I don't doubt it's what he thinks, but the DfT has already decided it will change (see the intentions for LNER as East Coast Partnership).
They just want him to put the bones on it, by deciding how to carve up the railway to integrate NR and the TOCs in some practical way that maintains private sector involvement.
He hasn't said anything yet (still 6 months to go) which proposes a specific alternative.
Meanwhile, NR has reorganised itself into 13 Routes within 5 Regions that look suspiciously like the Big 4 with Scotland separated.
They just want him to put the bones on it, by deciding how to carve up the railway to integrate NR and the TOCs in some practical way that maintains private sector involvement.
He hasn't said anything yet (still 6 months to go) which proposes a specific alternative.
Meanwhile, NR has reorganised itself into 13 Routes within 5 Regions that look suspiciously like the Big 4 with Scotland separated.
Exactly.
Nationalisation only puts a different kind of financial pressure on tax payers. It would place Unions in control of ordinary hard working people's lives. It would kill off regional investment.
Franchising has flaws, clearly . But the balance has to be stuck.
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
At the expense of freight?
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Odd then how "deeply inefficient" BR worked with regional authorities to re-open the sucessful Cross City line across Brum , a host of stations , electrification and new services in the Yorkshire etc area , implemented Thameslink for a very modest sum , re-vitalised the North London line and electrified to North Woolwich, saved the Valleys lines from terminal decline etc....I could go on.
And ran the most cost effective railway in Europe in the late 1980's.
Almost a "what did the Romans do for us" rant here , if anyone here is old enough to recall the seminal "Life of Brian" film .....
CambrianCoast
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 113
The only thing is though, is that we’re already paying billions in subsidies to the TOCs through the taxation system anyway so why not just cut out the middleman and run trains as a national, public service. The unions are already very influential within the railway industry so I can’t see why nationalisation would change that.
Many would argue that facts must be faced and acknowledge that the privatisation of the railways has failed. The cases of VTEC and National Express on the East Coast demonstrate that when the going gets tough, they hand back the keys, and off they go, leaving the taxpayer to plug the financial hole and find a way of continuing to run services.
We’re at a pivotal moment in time, following unprecedented growth in passenger numbers over recent years, we’re now at risk of alienating a large part of the population who choose to or have no choice but to depend on the railway to live their lives, with fares going through the roof and increasingly reported poor service standards, I cannot see any other alternative but to renationalise. Chopping and changing and creating bespoke franchises and services for each individual area of the country isn’t going to work. It’s an integrated, national network for a reason.
thedbdiboy
Member
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 960
These were innovative but EVERYTHING was done on the cheap. New trains replaced old on a 2 new vehicles for 3 old ones basis. Thameslink was funded by flogging off railway land between Blackfriars and Farringdon that is lost forever for railway use - remember that this was a four track solum - how useful would that have been in managing issues through the core? Corby was a cheapo reopening in the 80s that only subsequently got a proper station, double track and now electrification. The problem was not BR but chronic lack of funding - see below
The current model isn't working but unfortunately most people today aren't old enough to remember the chronic problems with nationalisation. Governments are under pressure to pay for schools, nurses, policemen etc. Railways ALWAYS go to the back of the queue. Contractualising railways removes them from the annual treasury budget cycle and provides investment certainty over a few years, so whatever replaces franchising needs to be able to replicate or improve on this funding model and straightforward nationalisation simply won't do it - as soon as things get tough the railways will face cutbacks and higher fare increases.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
ok,so instead of franchises and track charges, maybe we need to look at time access auctions for stuff like intercity.
whereby operators can bid for specific time slots
T.B.H the dft need to stay out of specifying what provisions are on trains.
If an operator chooses to fit crap seats with no wifi,but flog tickets from london to newcastle for a tenner,then that is the business between the operator and the customer.
if the service is poor,then people won't travel with them..and revenue falls(or rather transfers to a better alternative)
some people will happily take the crap seats, some are prepared to pay a premium for better comfort.
works well enough with air traffic control and the airlines!
ground crew inspect the plane and specify ok to fly,but the luxuries of complimentary food/drink and reclining seats are property of the airline.
I wouldn't have too much of a problem with some young upstart TOC running redundant HST's and paying for a can of stella and a microwave pie myself for that price.
..I am rather partial to a good bordaeux and filet mignon but first and formost when travelling i expect to be on time in reasonable shape for a meeting!
I think perhaps ticketing should be done on a time access basis as well.That would mean you can basically use whatever operator is running the service between the entry and exit points,rather than being stranded for hours waiting for a specified train to turn up..or the next available from that operator.
whereby operators can bid for specific time slots
T.B.H the dft need to stay out of specifying what provisions are on trains.
If an operator chooses to fit crap seats with no wifi,but flog tickets from london to newcastle for a tenner,then that is the business between the operator and the customer.
if the service is poor,then people won't travel with them..and revenue falls(or rather transfers to a better alternative)
some people will happily take the crap seats, some are prepared to pay a premium for better comfort.
works well enough with air traffic control and the airlines!
ground crew inspect the plane and specify ok to fly,but the luxuries of complimentary food/drink and reclining seats are property of the airline.
I wouldn't have too much of a problem with some young upstart TOC running redundant HST's and paying for a can of stella and a microwave pie myself for that price.
..I am rather partial to a good bordaeux and filet mignon but first and formost when travelling i expect to be on time in reasonable shape for a meeting!
I think perhaps ticketing should be done on a time access basis as well.That would mean you can basically use whatever operator is running the service between the entry and exit points,rather than being stranded for hours waiting for a specified train to turn up..or the next available from that operator.
Last edited:
43074
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,017
(My bold)
The difference though is that the railway is a barely profitable entity in its own right, therefore there will always be parts of the system which require government subsidy, and it is generally agreed there are economic and social benefits to providing this support. Ultimately the DfT are the customer, if you're buying something you'd want to have a say in it wouldn't you?
Auctioning paths sounds a nice idea for InterCity services in theory but in practice I doubt it would work - How does it work for say Northern or TPE? How much competition would there actually be, or would the likes of First or Virgin/Stagecoach flood the market for paths even though they might be carrying hardly any passengers? Where's the strategic overview of the system as a whole in an auction system?
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
That is indeed how it was , (regrettably) - getting shot of Holborn Viaduct and building City Thameslink on what was (I think) , the largest undeveloped bomb site in the City was the price of getting Thameslink in as a starter , very cleverly done , but remember the service patterns were never considered then , to be what the plan for the near future today is The view of the DfT at the time was incredibly hostile - think Serpell and all that , the drive of Peter Parker and others clawed BR into "some spend and investment" , compared to the grim years of the late 1970's onwards.
2 for 3 replacement (and life extension of the 4 EPB's and Met Camm DMU's was a survival strategy. There were undelivered aspirations for a much bigger Networker fleel and MK5's , let alone Crossrail 1 !
Last edited by a moderator:
muddythefish
On Moderation
- Joined
- 13 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,576
Hard working people belong to trade unions too.
The nationalised BR was arguably the most cost-effective railway in Europe. It was starved of investment - but that was a decision by successive governments wedded to building ever more roads, not because of it was a nationalised entity.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
We're pretty much at that point already. Arguably the only strategic rail freight routes now are Southampton/Thamesport/Felixstowe-WCML and Mendip quarries-London/SE. The rest is largely there on sufferance. That doesn't mean that there is no debate to be had of course but ultimately while politicians may be interested in the votes of passengers containers have no such appeal to them!
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
But if you have a report written then you can instruct the author to make it have the outcome you want, and then defend any attacks against the then-new policy by waving around the "independent" report. The railway experts are by no means guaranteed to come to the conclusion that you want. "Yes Minister" is as true nowadays as it was back in its day, in many ways.
As opposed to the current, of course, where the unions wouldn't dream of striking on a year's worth of Saturdays. /s
I see where you’re coming from, and you make an argument with which many would agree. My worry would be that you’d end up with the railway equivalent of Ryanair - a baseline-budget, morally bankrupt operator who work everything in such a way that ultimately their shareholders are the only ones who benefit, whilst simultaneously forcing competitors out of business, leaving passengers with little in the way of a viable alternative without going up to business class or equivalent.
But the taxpayer still pays for it anyway. I can`t quite see the relevance of mentioning unions or "regional investment" either.
I see that people are making all sorts of claims and assumptions. I'm surprised that he is making a public announcement at all, given that the review is a long way from complete.
The astute might have noticed that his "I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart" message echoes a very similar sentiment from Andrew Haines in his speech at the Golden Whistles where he said, for example, "I took this job to put passengers first and deliver a better service".
The astute might have noticed that his "I believe that for the railway to be successful it needs to put passengers at its heart" message echoes a very similar sentiment from Andrew Haines in his speech at the Golden Whistles where he said, for example, "I took this job to put passengers first and deliver a better service".
Gerald Fiennes
Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 864
Four-track from Holborn Viaduct to Farringdon...?
I think all Chief Planner is pointing out is that BR did do all kinds of excellent improvements itself, on a very restricted budget, and this is often forgotten. NR has about 6X more cash to play with than BR did: the big question is whether HMT will let this continue, now that it has pay rail investment upfront not via a credit card. For CP6, it will. Beyond that, who knows...
It seems to me that the chronic problems of Nationalisation were very much down to the Beeching/Serpell attitude that pervaded the Government at the time. Neverttheless, carefully planned investment was getting a more sympathetic ear during the 1980's
Replacing three carriages with two might seem like an efficiency too far, but its also worth remembering that before the great rolling stock order freeze, BR had an established supply chain through the likes of Metro-Cammel and BREL which could produce additional rolling stock when resources became available, and without the never-ending leasing liabilities of today's forty year old rolling stock.
I'm not sure how 'on the cheap' electrification of St Leonards - Tonbridge or Portsmouth - Southampton/Eastleigh was, but at least it got done. Which is more than can be said for Marshlink or Uckfield today.
Last edited:
I always thought the EPB facelift made very pleasing improvement to the travelling environment. Certainly as successful as the refurbishments that adorn some of our forty year old rolling stock today.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Cheap - the Hastings line was a mix of squeezing the existing EMU fleet , (and not replacing the 1957 era Hastings Units) and not renewing bits of infrastructure further south (albeit at the expense of Grove Junction to Tunbridge Wells West) . Soton - Eastleigh was a very cost effective one , partly done using recycled - partly worn con rail and again squeezing the SW fleet this time.
Had BR continued beyond 1994 , not impossible to think that some of the other "missing gaps" would have been done. There were plans for them. Just no funding.
Last edited by a moderator:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
correct. I cant believe NR would make changes without having a good steer on the direction of the report, nor can I believe the government would employ a new chief executive of NR without ensuring he was on board with the direction of travel.
thedbdiboy
Member
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 960
If you take into account Smithfield sidings and the abandoned south - west curve there used to be a lot of infrastructure all the way to Farringdon....
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Having read the speech by Keith Williams, he takes us to the brink of saying something important, but doesn't actually get there.
The parallel paper the team published on rail financing also points out the huge cost of the railway and how the taxpayer interest is not being satisfied.
He also seems to be questioning the railway industry's ways of working as much as the organisational structure.
We really need to be 5 months down the road to see if his new blueprint works.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-bradshaw-address-by-keith-williams
The parallel paper the team published on rail financing also points out the huge cost of the railway and how the taxpayer interest is not being satisfied.
He also seems to be questioning the railway industry's ways of working as much as the organisational structure.
We really need to be 5 months down the road to see if his new blueprint works.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-bradshaw-address-by-keith-williams
This one caught my eye too, because on the other side, there is a definite feeling that the 'over-specification' is both hampering innovation and is a contributory factor to the reduced interest in running franchises, especially the less attractive ones.
I'd make two points:
1. It's a very difficult commercial environment when you are stuck with, often quite daft, service level commitments on the one hand, a highly regulated fare base (with in-built perversions) on the other, and with a pile of 'improvements' to deliver (some of which don't make a deal of sense).
2. The more you specify, the more you feel you have to specify; it's a bit of a vicious spiral. TfL have taken a different approach - they have incentives for good practice and fines for bad - based on results. I know which I think is the better solution.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
You do realise that franchising has created more wage inflation in the industry than anything else? TOCs who are short staffed will pay high wages to attract qualified staff; TOCs with adequate staffing have to pay high wages to keep them.
Holborn Viaduct? Hardly a congestion buster. Selling the land was a smart move. No other land went- the Snow Hill tunnel was only ever two-track.
The innovation wasn't that it was done "on the cheap"; the innovation was that it was done at all. Thameslink opened just five years after the Serpell Report was published, advocating closure of 84% of the railway network. The ECML electrification may have been done on a budget, but five years earlier Serpell wanted the ECML north of Newcastle closed entirely!
That Thameslink and ECML electrification happened in that climate was a massive achivement.
- Status