• 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!

Keith Williams suggests government should take a back seat in franchising

Status
Not open for further replies.

Plethora

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
117
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

The former boss of British Airways, Keith Williams, said government involvement should be limited to overall policy and budget decisions.

But he said the Department for Transport should not manage the system.

His review of the rail system will be published this autumn.

Mr Williams said he also believed that, in the future, rail franchises should be underpinned by punctuality and other performance-related targets.

Is this a sign of conclusions to come? It seems to go contrary to the expectations of some who envisaged a greater role for Network Rail in the future.

I suspect many on this forum would welcome less government interference, though it would remain to be seen how consistent investment could be guaranteed.

He also mentions longer franchises and an overhaul of ticketing.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
It seems to go contrary to the expectations of some who envisaged a greater role for Network Rail in the future.
A greater role for Network rail is not contrary to less Government oversight, it just depends who steers (or owns) that organisation in future. Clearly state management of NR has not been a stunning success and needs to be addressed.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
Sounds like the SRA is on its way back. But as long as the railway requires billions of taxpayers money Government will always remain heavily involved.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
A greater role for Network rail is not contrary to less Government oversight, it just depends who steers (or owns) that organisation in future. Clearly state management of NR has not been a stunning success and needs to be addressed.

The article quotes Mr Williams thus:
He is still to decide on what relationship the individual or organisation [who is accountable to the public] would have with government but he said Network Rail, the public company managing rail infrastructure, should not take on an overall managerial role.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Someone still needs to do a lot of detailed analysis and the most effective /efficient location for that to get done is probably NR rather than an SRA mark2. One of the biggest issues with DfT is that they don't have enough staff (and especially staff with the right skills/knowledge) and/or resources (i.e. funds for consultancy) allocated to do the job properly.
Funding to carry out this role is key, else the current issues will be replicated. The smallest increment in funding is likely to be with NR taking on some of the analysis work load but not the top level decision making.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
The man tasked with working out how to improve UK railways says a "Fat Controller" type figure, independent from government, should be in charge of day-to-day operations.

The former boss of British Airways, Keith Williams, said government involvement should be limited to overall policy and budget decisions.

But he said the Department for Transport should not manage the system.

His review of the rail system will be published this autumn.

The Fat Controller is a fictional character who manages the railways in Thomas the Tank Engine, the children's television series based on the The Railway Series books.

Mr Williams said he also believed that, in the future, rail franchises should be underpinned by punctuality and other performance-related targets.

The government launched the review after passengers in northern and southern England experienced chaos over several weeks last summer following the introduction of a new timetable.

By December, punctuality across the country had dropped to a 13-year low.

p07h001g.jpg


Media caption'Somebody needs to be accountable to the public'
In a BBC interview Mr Williams insisted the interests of passengers would shape every aspect of his work and that the creation of an individual or organisation with oversight of the entire rail system would be "key for regaining public trust."

"Someone needs to be accountable to the public," he said.

He is still to decide on what relationship the individual or organisation would have with government but he said Network Rail, the public company managing rail infrastructure, should not take on an overall managerial role.

The idea has echoes of the Strategic Rail Authority, a body which, from 2001 to 2006, provided "strategic direction" for the industry.

Mr Williams had already said that the current rail franchising model was finished, but he has now indicated that a franchise should last longer than the current average of seven to eight years.

Performance targets
He argues that if train companies were in charge of networks for more time they would have more incentive to invest.

As things stand, under a franchise agreement, a train company will make a series of commitments to the government which have to be delivered.

According to Mr Williams, a franchise should no longer be about "how many ticketing offices there are in a station".

p07dmj34.jpg


Media captionHydrogen trains: Are these the eco-friendly trains of the future?
His team is looking into how franchises could focus instead on performance targets such as punctuality and whether or not services have the correct number of carriages - something which continues to be a problem for passengers in the north of England.

The rail review also looks set to recommend an overhaul of the complicated rail ticketing system, which has not been reformed since the mid-90s.

"Pay-as-you-go across regions and cities has been difficult to implement because of the fares system that exists today," said Mr Williams.

He said a national system should be created to allow more third-party companies like thetrainline.com to improve the way people buy tickets.

Full article
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Someone still needs to do a lot of detailed analysis and the most effective /efficient location for that to get done is probably NR rather than an SRA mark2.
I disagree. NR needs to concentrate one infrastructure, and some independent body needs to orchestrate, because the optimal solution for the railway as a whole is not necessarily the most expedient for NR.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
He also mentions longer franchises and an overhaul of ticketing.
Didn’t the SRAs Alister Morton make almost identical recommendations over 20 years ago. So the guy that made a major speech recently stating franchising is dead has now changed his tune. This indicates the review’s turning into a largely meaningless & rudderless mish mash of ideas I always feared, and will ultimately achieve very little, if anything at all for the time & money spent on it .
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Monitoring "whether a train has the correct number of carriages" is still micromanagement by the government.
It has echoes of the targets the NHS gets set (eg waiting times), where they become the sole measure of an organisation's success to the detriment of the wider business.
An SRA2 would only work until the first funding crunch and dispute with the Treasury, which caused its demise last time.
There's no hint in this about changing the nature of franchises (ie where the risk lies), or how it is all funded.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
Didn’t the SRAs Alister Morton make almost identical recommendations over 20 years ago. So the guy that made a major speech recently stating franchising is dead has now changed his tune. This indicates the review’s turning into a largely meaningless & rudderless mish mash of ideas I always feared, and will ultimately achieve very little, if anything at all for the time & money spent on it .

He said Franchising in its current form is dead. We will find out in the autumn what the full review looks like.
 

sikejsudjek

Member
Joined
7 Aug 2018
Messages
21
The simple answer is to look at what works best in other countries. (Hint - it's not privatisation....)
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
So it says Mr Williams already said that the current rail franchising model was finished, and yet there's mention of longer franchises?

Will the report look at whether the government can bid for contracts under a directly operated type arrangement if this were an option of providing better value for the taxpayer on certain franchises such as the East Coast/or maybe all franchises?
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,124
He said Franchising in its current form is dead. We will find out in the autumn what the full review looks like.
Ok but as the likes of Christian Woolmar often point out, we’ve already seen a large variety of different types of franchises let during the current era of privatisation. If we’ve decided it’s best just to continue tweaking the current system then start today & dont waste top professionals time or railway budgets on amother pointless review .
 
Last edited:

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
So it says Mr Williams already said that the current rail franchising model was finished, and yet there's mention of longer franchises?

Will the report look at whether the government can bid for contracts under a directly operated type arrangement if this were an option of providing better value for the taxpayer on certain franchises such as the East Coast/or maybe all franchises?

But it seems like the targets will be completely different things that passengers really want. Punctuality etc. I doubt the Government will be able to bid for contracts. He also hinted at greater regional control
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Ok but as the likes of Christian Woolmar often point out, we’ve already seen a large variety of different types of franchises let during the current era of privatisation.
When I think back to the original Virgin West Coast franchise and Virgin XC franchises, it was my perception that the TOC had a greater control in terms of branding, bringing in new trains that they specified rather than the DFT, and things have evolved into the recent model, where it sort of feels like the DFT basically say yay or no to what goes to a fine detail, but without actually running day to day operations. Even corporate branding is dissapperaing in terms of long term fixed brand names being introduced to new franchises.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
But it seems like the targets will be completely different things that passengers really want. Punctuality etc. I doubt the Government will be able to bid for contracts. He also hinted at greater regional control
When I asked about government bidding for contracts in the form of some kind of directly operated railways type, I was sort of hinting at whether a limited company could be formed which is underwritten by the DFT, sort of like DFT OLR Holdings, where that setup could bid to compare value for money and look at whether it would be the better option per franchise to mitigate risk?

Where the premiums could be set low if needs be and operations wouldn't necessarily have to turn a huge profit and share holders wouldn't need to be made pleased.

If the answer to that is no on principal that state ownership of the operation is wrong doesn't seem to make sense when it does look to have been a success twice on the ECML?
 

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
956
It would be helpful if we could all bury the use of the term 'franchise' and just refer to contracts. The current franchising model is dead, but there are plenty of viable contracting models that work very well in the transport industry. In that context, its perfectly reasonable for the report to suggest alternatives.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The simple answer is to look at what works best in other countries. (Hint - it's not privatisation....)

Which particular countries did you have in mind?
All the continental railways are in the throes of opening up their networks for competition, as per the EU's Fourth Railway Package.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Another issue (is it an issue?) with the current setup is that improvements seem to come thick and fast during the first five years of a franchise (with 1 year being just settling in ) but the last two years seem to slow down to very little investment or ongoing organic progression. Franchise holders seem to sort of go into coasting mode and then might have a further 1 year extension after that or whatever just running as is.

Why can't further improvements be 'agreed' on a progressive ongoing basis even after the initial obligations are complete?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There does in the UK seem to be a view that if you're not moving you're going backwards. I'm not always convinced about this, and I think a bit of conservatism makes sense. The VTWC setup at the moment really does work very well, and only really needs a bit of tinkering round the edges pre-HS2, and almost all that tinkering just involves either replacing the Voyagers or obtaining more EMUs so as to allow an all-day hourly Bangor and an end to 5-car running/reduction of DMUs under the wires. The only other things wrong are very minor staff related issues such as the Euston barrier and Coach K issue.

Indeed, I think most of the network doesn't need radical changes, just "basic" ones such as adding capacity through rolling stock orders and platform extensions, tweaks to move towards, where viable, regular-interval connectional timetabling and the likes. A fares overhaul probably is needed but this is rather separate.

As another example, many of us might slight XC, but isn't the real issue with XC (ignoring fares) just that most of their trains need to be twice the length they are? Do that and I'm sure you'd get a general improvement in service too, as no staff like running trains packed full and standing with unhappy people, so that must surely impact on their job satisfaction too.

I am no Virgin fanboi, but just a long-term, frequent user of the WCML for many years who is generally very satisfied with the service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pwig

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2014
Messages
9
The simple answer is to look at what works best in other countries. (Hint - it's not privatisation....)

Depends what you regard as best? If you mean costing the taxpayer the least amount of money, then we are second best in Europe behind Germany..

If you would rather pay more tax for a better system. How much would you personally be prepared to pay each year extra? £100? £200? £1000?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Here's the Railway Gazette version of the interview, as usual in greater depth.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...iterates-call-for-uk-franchising-changes.html
Cross-industry consultation over the past six months had confirmed a widely-held view that the Department for Transport ‘needs to step back from the operational minutiae’. The review team was therefore ‘looking closely’ at the suggestion of establishing a new arms-length body ‘to act as a “guiding mind” and help simplify this complex industry’. While the idea would have ‘clear merit’ in principle, Williams warned that any new structure would ‘have to deliver clearer accountability for the public when things go wrong’.

The review team is due to report back to DfT later this year, with a ‘range of proposals’, and Williams emphasised that it would be ‘down to ministers to decide the shape of these reforms’.
Rail union RMT responded angrily to the reports, with General Secretary Mick Cash suggesting that Williams had been ‘hand-picked’ by Grayling to try and get the government ‘off the hook over the privatised chaos on our railways’. Claiming that the review would ‘duck the issue of public ownership’, he described the proposal for ‘creation of a new, unaccountable quango’ as a ‘fix’ which would only benefit ‘big business’
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/williams-rail-review-an-update-on-progress

Opening remarks
Good morning everyone.

I am delighted to join you in Bradford this morning (15 July 2019).

This is a city with a proud history.

And this building has played an important part in it.

You might know that Winston Churchill spoke here twice. First in 1914 he gave a speech about Irish Unionism. And then in 1942, as Prime Minister, following the Battle of El Alamein ⁠— he gave a rousing address, right outside this building to a cheering crowd of thousands.

Urging Britons to gather up all their strength for the next stage of the War.

It ended with the crowd singing unprompted ‘For he’s a jolly good fellow.’

So admittedly I have something of a tough act to follow today.

But while I can’t promise you Churchillian standards of oratory.

And I’m not expecting you all to burst into song when I’ve finished.

I do want to talk about an issue that it is of immense importance to this country

I am here today because the outcome of my review will affect passengers everywhere, all over the network, and I want to hear what you think about your railway, both the challenges and opportunities.

The government set up the review because it recognised that the time had come for change.

The huge disruption that followed the May 2018 timetable introductioncaused misery for thousands of passengers, particularly here in the north.

In the aftermath I was asked to lead this review with a brief to deliver ‘revolution’ not ‘evolution’. That’s the spirit in which I have taken the review forward.

My objective is to create an industry that is built around its customers and the communities and local businesses it serves.

It must also provide value to taxpayers, who provide a significant amount of the railways funding. Achieving that requires significant change, the scale of which is comparable in some areas to the scale of change seen at privatisation.

The circumstances that led to the review’s launch ⁠— timetabling disruption, problems experienced with some major investment projects and the collapse of the Virgin Trains East Coast franchise (something that’s pertinent to this region) ⁠— are all symptomatic of deeper, more fundamental issues in the railway.

The fact is that the railway in 2019 is hugely different from the railway as it was following privatisation. The sector, on the other hand, is much the same.

While we should not lose sight of the significant benefits that the privatised industry has delivered ⁠— more trains, more passengers, more investment in infrastructure, as the new ombudsman and the roll out of the DR15compensation scheme across the network.

Today’s railway is not set up to be flexible.

To lead or adapt to major change.

Or to focus the necessary to provide the sort of service that modern passengers expect, and have become used to in other sectors, like aviation.

I won’t be setting out my recommendations today.

But what I will do is give a clear sense of the scale of the challenge we face to build a more nimble, responsive railway.

That embraces innovation and change.

And the comes together to focus on the customers ⁠— passengers and freight ⁠— who keep the railway in business. I will share with you the key areas where, based on what I’ve heard and the evidence I’ve seen over the past 9 months, I believe reform should be focused.

I will also set out what I think are the key ingredients of a brand-new offer for the travelling public.

The ORR has been working with the review in this and I am very grateful to Dan Brown, ORR’s Director of strategy and policy, for being here today to talk through the work it has published today on enhancing compensation and accessibility.

The hard work that the ORR has put in is hugely valued and appreciated.

Hopefully, between us, we will tee-up a lively panel discussion, which I look forward too.

Before I begin I want to first mention the tragic event in south Wales a fortnight ago, which resulted in 2 deaths.

Over the last 25 years the UK railway has built a world leading safety record which the industry is quite rightly proud of. Maintaining it has been a central consideration in the development of our reforms.

However, this accident a sad reminder that we absolutely cannot take safety for granted.

I can only offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends of those affected.

Looking back at the listening phase
When the review launched 10 months ago, I started the review by listening.

Myself, members of my expert challenge panel and the team have had hundreds of meetings all over the country.

We have met passengers, train operators, community groups, mayors, politicians, engineers, businesses, campaign groups, investors, trade unions, employees… the list goes on.

We have run a 2 stage call for evidence which has attracted almost 700 responses. Testament to the passion and dedication that people feel towards the railway and the important role it plays in everyday lives.

We have held focus groups, consultation events and roundtables to further test our emerging ideas.

This has given us a clear and evidence-based understanding of what passengers, the industry, and communities across the UK see as the key challenges and opportunities for the railway.

For Bradford, I know that there are some large investments happening to improve journeys in this area. This includes the introduction of modern trains, upgraded signalling and station improvements, as well as the major upgrade work happening at nearby Leeds station.

But I also know the time it is taking to deliver improvements is creating frustration and means that passengers aren’t always getting the quality service they deserve.

I am talking to Richard George, who looked at the northern network in detail in the wake of the timetable crisis, to understand how the review can contribute to his work to improve services across this area.

As well as listening, the review has been building its evidence base and published evidence papers on: the user experience; passenger perceptions and trust; the costs and benefits of the railway for our economy and society, including the importance of freight; comparisons between rail systems around the world; and rail’s position in a future will integrated transport network, where passengers will expect to buy seamless door to door travel.

We’re now in the process of narrowing down both the options for reform and our final recommendations.

Putting passengers at the heart of reform
When I started the review, I promised to put passengers first.

To ensure we do not stray from that commitment, the measures we are considering all contribute to 10 fundamental, evidence based, passenger needs.

These draw heavily on work done by Transport Focus, ORR, Which?, Campaign for Better Transport and others who responded to our call for evidence.

We see 5 of these as the ‘core passenger offer’.

In no particular order, these are:

Reliability and punctuality ⁠— which we know are top of passengers’ priorities and crucial to re-building trust.

Safety and security.

Value for money — judged based on whether the journey experience and quality corresponds with the price of the fare.

Consistency and transparency — by providing the same high-quality experience, together with a clear and easily comprehensible ticket system.

And lastly accessibility.

A further 5 user needs go beyond the basics, but are important to maintaining high levels of satisfaction. These include:

Accountability and leadership — the travelling public want to know someone is in charge and who to contact when things go wrong.

Accurate information and communication before, during and after journeys and particularly during disruption so that they can make informed, decisions about their journey.

Passengers also want to proper compensation and redress — so claiming is easy and train companies more proactive in telling passengers when compensation is due.

Whatever recommendations I make, they must satisfy these basic passenger needs.

These are our guiding principles.

And when we are engaged in complex and technical discussions on commercial models and industry structures — keep our feet to the fire of what passengers want and deserve from the railway.

We have used them alongside the assessment criteria we published earlier in the year to formulate clear, passenger focused, recommendations.

Over the next few months we’ll present these to the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, whoever that may be.

This will be followed by a government white paper.

Vision for the future
I have been frank with the department for transport about the scale of change required — including a different role for DfT — to create a genuinely customer-focused industry.

It is onboard with the direction we’re heading in.

The Secretary of State has, since the beginning of the review, has challenged me to deliver revolution not evolution. And DfT Permanent Secretary, Bernadette Kelly, has spoken openly of her and her department’s appetite for change recognising that that the department has become too immersed in delivery.

She understands that, at the end of this review, simply tinkering at the edges will not be credible.

And the government will have to step back from the railway.

But creating greater distance from government, must also bring the railway closer to passengers.

What comes next must be anchored in the regions and communities — and nearer to the people — the railway serves.

I want to see the creation of a thoroughly modern, 21st century service provider.

A railway that is run in the public’s interest, delivering for passengers, supporting local economies, embracing innovation and new business models to improve journey experience and reduce costs.

It must be open, collaborative, embrace and create opportunities — for its people, passengers, communities and businesses.

It must also sustain and enhance opportunities for our important freight industry, moving goods and materials around the country and helping to reduce congestion and pollution on the roads.

We need to change both the design and culture of the railway so it prioritises customers — passengers and freight.

And for regions like the north and cities across the country, there must be greater opportunities to influence and inform decisions about services and upgrades in your area.

This will require:

Clear leadership and purpose.

A new relationship between the public and private sectors.

A simpler and more agile structure that is responsive to changing travel and working patterns, to new technologies and business models, ensuring the sector can meet the expectations of the 21st century passenger.

And strong regulation to maintain — and wherever possible enhance — safety and protect consumers.

Focus for reform
To achieve this vison, I believe reform should be focused on 5 key areas.

A new passenger offer, focused on customer service excellence and driven by performance measures to bring about genuine behavioural and cultural change.

This offer should also include initiatives to strengthen the consumer voice, improve accessibility, compensation, and passenger information. There will be more on these proposals from the ORR shortly.

Second, simplified fares and ticketing. To create a modern, customer focused railway we must tackle fares reform. The structure hasn’t been substantially updated since 1995 and is holding back innovation and customer-focused improvements across the network.

I can’t tell you how much change there’s been to fares and ticketing in the aviation industry over that time — selling flight tickets has become a major industry in itself.

Some of the companies doing it are worth more than the airlines — innovating and collaborating, driving down costs for the industry and passengers, as well as offering passengers much more choice about how and when they travel.

Companies like Trainline are demonstrating that innovation in possible for rail. But modernising the fares and ticketing structure can unlock much more of this.

Helping to grow ridership by making better use of off-peak services and driving other improvements like the wider rollout of pay as you go.

Both passengers and the industry want to see change. It will require tough decisions, create winners and some losers. But, action is needed if we’re to bring the railway into line with what the travelling public expects in the 21st century.

Next, a new industry structure, reducing fragmentation, better aligning track and train, creating clear accountability and a greater distance between government and running the day to day railway.

What has come through strongly in our call for evidence is consensus for a more rational and effective way of organising the industry. And, that organisations at heart of it — including Network Rail, the RDG, DfT, the RSSBand the ORR — are open to change.

A wide range of organisations have argued in favour of a new arm’s length body or bodies to act as a ‘guiding mind’.

It is an idea we’re looking at closely. In principle, it could have clear merit, working to solve some of the challenges the industry faces around accountability and fragmentation.

But what would it really mean to have a new public-sector body when government is providing so much of the funding?

How could that be accommodated?

And what would be the right scope of any bodies responsibilities be?

These are interesting and difficult questions that need consideration.

Wherever we get to, I’m clear that the railway needs a structure that enhances strategic planning, including at the local level, and facilitates better engagement on specification, and delivery of regional enhancements.

Where there is local appetite and capability the new structure could also provide a clear way for regions or cities to make the case to operate and invest in the railway in future.

One thing I am not considering is giving Network Rail control over the trains, as recent reports in the media suggest.

This is no judgement on Network Rail — I’ve been impressed with their professionalism and the direction of their Put Passengers First initiative. But you don’t create a customer focused railway by putting engineers in charge.

Fourth, a new commercial model. What’s absolutely clear is that the current franchising model has had its day.

What worked in the 25 years after privatisation is now holding the sector back. It hampers collaboration, stops the railway working as a system and encourages operators to protect narrow commercial interest above passengers.

As a result, passengers experience difficulty moving between different lines and operators particularly during disruption, don’t get the information they want and expect about the source delays and how to navigate round them, and are left with a lurking feeling that train companies prioritise profit over customer service.

I won’t be recommending what comes next here today, but the principles are clear.

A different relationship between the public and private sector that lets train operators get on with running services in the interest of passengers.

Greater flexibility so that the sector can respond to changing travel patterns and long-term incentives for creativity and innovation.

Given the people related challenges facing the industry — from innovation, through industrial relations to diversity, leadership and skills — we are also developing a range of proposals on leadership, skills, diversity and increased engagement to help reform and involve the rail workforce over the long term.

We want to attract and retain an agile, diverse and flexible workforce.

But there are no silver bullets for the long-standing issues arising from sector fragmentation and a history of adversarial industrial relations.

We’ve met a lot of hardworking people and while frankly industrial relations are bad, everyone wants the same thing — a great railway.

Nevertheless, reform will take time, will, collaboration and trust.

Conclusion
So, this is where we are.

Listening has told us the government, industry, the regions, passengers, politicians from across the spectrum and everyone else with a stake in the railway are united in a desire for root and branch change. So, the opportunity to deliver genuine, lasting reform here is huge.

The industry is complex and getting to our final destination may take some time, but passengers must see and feel tangible changes quickly if we are to turn around declining satisfaction and trust.

Change will need tough decisions to be taken and require collaboration and partnership working across the sector, but the prize will be big.

I look forward to discussing our emerging think in greater detail with you all and the panel over the next hours or so.

Thank you.

From Gov.Uk official statement at Bradford.
 

sprunt

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
1,156
Which particular countries did you have in mind?
All the continental railways are in the throes of opening up their networks for competition, as per the EU's Fourth Railway Package.

This is true, but in none of these cases - I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong - is the existing organisation being privatised. There will still be a government owned national rail company operating a comprehensive network, simply with open access competition.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I think this is a significant nugget from the speech:
One thing I am not considering is giving Network Rail control over the trains, as recent reports in the media suggest.
This is no judgement on Network Rail — I’ve been impressed with their professionalism and the direction of their Put Passengers First initiative.
But you don’t create a customer focused railway by putting engineers in charge.

Yesterday I met the customer-focussed railway.
The lifts at Manchester Oxford Road (restored recently after many years of disuse) were barriered off, with some statement about them only being open at peak times for season ticket holders.
So the narrow, inadequate bridge stairway was full of people struggling with push-chairs and luggage (including one poor girl on crutches).
I presume this is a Northern issue.
The Merseyrail lift at Liverpool Lime St was also out of action, but at least Merseyrail had staff on hand to help people who needed it.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
This is true, but in none of these cases - I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong - is the existing organisation being privatised. There will still be a government owned national rail company operating a comprehensive network, simply with open access competition.

No, there will be competition at all levels eventually, with periodic retendering of services.
The plans usually start at regional or line level but eventually do reach the main long-distance operator (often after an initial period of protection).
All TOCs will have to operate as commercial entities (public or private) for a level playing field, and to allow new entrants.
The various state operators are aiming to operate in other countries (in competition with the incumbent), just as they do here.
The tendering process is about to start in many countries, even France.
In the meantime the incumbent railways are restructuring fast to cope with the new regime.
Some countries are better prepared than others.
That's not to say the governments will not own big chunks of their railway operation.
But the award of contracts will have to be transparent and open to competition.
Although it isn't the most relevant example, the Greek passenger network is now run by Trenitalia.
Ownership (public or private, or some mix) is not the issue for the EU, but competition is.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
It's all very nice, but the biggest issue at the moment is due to the level of pension related risk, very few companies want to take on franchises. The franchise system is broken unless enough organisations actually want to tender
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's all very nice, but the biggest issue at the moment is due to the level of pension related risk, very few companies want to take on franchises. The franchise system is broken unless enough organisations actually want to tender

This needs vesting in a Government entity to ensure it is properly funded, and all future new employees need to go onto investment based schemes like every other employee everywhere, pretty much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top