LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Well it's a useful fiction to compare to reality as it unfolds in the new Brexit/Covid-19 world of the future.
I guess it is the result of a lot of work by left-leaning think tanks and academics, with a layer of unionism on top.
It's also more detail than I ever remember Labour (or any political party) putting out as a master plan for the railways.
In recent times Labour has never allowed an "arm's length" operation of the railways, and it fact it was Brown and Darling who gave us DfT micro-management of rail.
The battle is always with the Treasury, who despise big-spending sectors like rail, which deliver uncertain returns only over a long period.
On top of that, we are heading into two black holes - Brexit and the massive public debt of Covid-19.
The Labour plan doesn't really set the economic and fiscal context which we are now in.
The tens of billions now being spent on the fallout from Covid-19 is money that won't be coming in rail's direction, and rail's own coffers are emptying fast.
Just as the Treasury is resisting Tory fares reform because of the revenue impact, they will surely baulk at a wholesale reorganisation of rail without cast iron guarantees (the sort that Mick Cash keeps demanding) that the change will be "revenue/cost neutral".
The paper keeps referring to practice in Germany with Deutsche Bahn.
This organisation is being readied for tendering of passenger services, and freight is private as it is here.
It is also in deep financial difficulty with repeated budgetary problems, and the difficulty of getting agreement from the Länder for investment and specific projects.
Not exactly a good comparator for a new GB Rail organisation.
There is really rather too much detail on the proposed organisation of GB Rail.
A regional/mainline split is sensible and will map on to the devolved authorities (though it will mean splitting the GWR operation, for instance).
As far as I can see HS1/2 are not mentioned, certainly not in strategic terms.
Somebody has had a fine time "playing trains" and largely reinventing BR's Regions/Sectors.
I think that sort of thing could have been left until the principles are agreed - which they won't be.
I also don't see how we get to a national zonal fare system without major surgery.
I can guess what long-term HR planning means - abolishing DOO, as in the recent Labour manifesto.
Transferring all employment to GB Rail also means union ability to bring the railway to a complete halt again.
Insourcing contractors to Network Rail requires NR to be able to offer continuous work - that's not so easy with stop-start investment policies.
All very interesting, but so much waste paper seeing as Labour are not going to be in a position to implement it for at least 5 years.
I think I'd call it a Green Paper (for discussion) rather than anything a government would enact, which is what we expect from Williams/DfT.
For good or ill, Grant Shapps is the one we have to watch, not Andy McDonald.
I guess it is the result of a lot of work by left-leaning think tanks and academics, with a layer of unionism on top.
It's also more detail than I ever remember Labour (or any political party) putting out as a master plan for the railways.
In recent times Labour has never allowed an "arm's length" operation of the railways, and it fact it was Brown and Darling who gave us DfT micro-management of rail.
The battle is always with the Treasury, who despise big-spending sectors like rail, which deliver uncertain returns only over a long period.
On top of that, we are heading into two black holes - Brexit and the massive public debt of Covid-19.
The Labour plan doesn't really set the economic and fiscal context which we are now in.
The tens of billions now being spent on the fallout from Covid-19 is money that won't be coming in rail's direction, and rail's own coffers are emptying fast.
Just as the Treasury is resisting Tory fares reform because of the revenue impact, they will surely baulk at a wholesale reorganisation of rail without cast iron guarantees (the sort that Mick Cash keeps demanding) that the change will be "revenue/cost neutral".
The paper keeps referring to practice in Germany with Deutsche Bahn.
This organisation is being readied for tendering of passenger services, and freight is private as it is here.
It is also in deep financial difficulty with repeated budgetary problems, and the difficulty of getting agreement from the Länder for investment and specific projects.
Not exactly a good comparator for a new GB Rail organisation.
There is really rather too much detail on the proposed organisation of GB Rail.
A regional/mainline split is sensible and will map on to the devolved authorities (though it will mean splitting the GWR operation, for instance).
As far as I can see HS1/2 are not mentioned, certainly not in strategic terms.
Somebody has had a fine time "playing trains" and largely reinventing BR's Regions/Sectors.
I think that sort of thing could have been left until the principles are agreed - which they won't be.
I also don't see how we get to a national zonal fare system without major surgery.
I can guess what long-term HR planning means - abolishing DOO, as in the recent Labour manifesto.
Transferring all employment to GB Rail also means union ability to bring the railway to a complete halt again.
Insourcing contractors to Network Rail requires NR to be able to offer continuous work - that's not so easy with stop-start investment policies.
All very interesting, but so much waste paper seeing as Labour are not going to be in a position to implement it for at least 5 years.
I think I'd call it a Green Paper (for discussion) rather than anything a government would enact, which is what we expect from Williams/DfT.
For good or ill, Grant Shapps is the one we have to watch, not Andy McDonald.