As I remember that was pretty much how the concept was put over initially.
-
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!
Transport Select Committee 24 June - Including plans to centralise control of Railways
- Thread starter Nicholas Lewis
- 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
Beyond the more "radical" think tanks there's no appetite for a free market in the railways in the Conservative party, so the only thing possible is private companies providing government specified services. All that might change are the structures.
That sounds like an airport giving landing slots without matching take off slots. Paths would obviously be offered as a bundle to allow stock and crews to make round trips.
Techincally it could work, politically and economically is another matter.
coppercapped
Established Member
It was one of several models that were proposed by different interest groups (the Cabinet Office, the DfT, the Treasury and outside parties) at different times. Very briefly these were:
- Regional - essentially re-creating the ‘Big 4’ (but could have been up to 12)
- Track Authority
- BR plc
- Sectorisation
- Hybrids of above.
It became clear during the run-up to privatisation that the 'free-for-all' had serious issues if a network-wide train service had to be maintained - and maintaining a train service comparable to BR's was a political imperative. The model chosen eventually was what we have now but its implementation has changed dramatically from the first franchises. The original intention was to push decision making to a managerial level as close to the customers (passenger and freight) as possible - but what has happened is that the Civil Service and the politicians have clawed back control further to the centre than was ever the case in BR's day.
I would argue that it's not the concept which is broken - but its implementation.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Though it's fallacious, because the market isn't trains, it's transport. A strong, single, unified railway is better placed to compete against air and car, the two modes we want to considerably reduce. You don't grow the market by pettily spatting within it - something the likes of Transdev have realised, but some other bus companies haven't.
FWIW, I'd have gone "BR plc".
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,932
I hope it does as new services will still be needed and certain routyes improved fronm where they are now.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I know that it is going back a long way but the dangers of that approach could be seen in the 1960s under governments of both main ideologies. British Rail(ways) was basically told that it could have very little money for either subsidy or investment and asked what size of system it could afford to operate. It was about two-thirds of the original size.
The Core Valleys element of the Wales & Borders 'franchise' was let on a similar basis. "we have X of capital, we have Y of subsidy pa, we'd like a minimum service level of Z, bonus points for electrification, extendability, accessibility, integration and things we like around fares and ticketing - what can you deliver?". Time will tell if that was a successful approach, but certainly gave scope for more innovative thinking for bidding teams, particularly as the operations and maintenance of the infrastructure was part of the mix - enabling certain elements of cost-saving lighter rail.
To be fair at the moment bidding teams can't do too much, it is basically just replace old trains, improve stations, introduce a smart card if there already isn't one and then do all this for the lowest price.
TfW's way of doing it seems to have worked well with lots of south wales being electrified, accessible (and very nice) new FLIRTs coming to south wales, pretty much all the fleet being replaced and because they are allowed do more innovative thinking, south wales has got tram trains.
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
While all that's true, it hasn't improved performance much over ATW days.
Before the Covid situation, TfW had to admit that performance in the first year did not meet expectations.
They blamed the poor state of the train fleet on handover.
That's before any new trains arrive and impact daily performance figures.
To be fair they will have a couple years until improvements can happen as they do take time, the delays to 769s and 230s certainly hasn't helped them. I could easily believe that the trains were in bad condition at handover, this is Arriva
Anyway we will see if the TfW way works in a couple years time and if it could work for the rest of the Britain.It sounds like a recipe for bargain basement, no frills train services to me. Why would operators bother making the passenger experience any better if they're not going to see any financial returns from doing so?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The most important things needed for the passenger experience are punctuality, reliability and capacity - not in any order, you need all three and none is optional or less important. If it does that, I'm in. Think SBB - the whole thing feels like a piece of infrastructure, not a commercially-driven business - but it (mostly) delivers on those three admirably. If we could switch to that tomorrow, I'm in.
(That doesn't mean it has to look rubbish, of course, and indeed SBB doesn't look rubbish, it looks very professional, unlike, for example, Avanti and LNR who have units running round in all states of "undress" - what was that about pride in your business again?)
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Those decisions (and the funding for them) will migrate to the franchise controller (DfT, TS, TfW etc), as it does currently with TfL and Merseytravel concessions.
They might contract that job out, as has essentially happened at LNER and Northern via OLR.
TfW is also a mix of central WG planning/funding and private partner (more than a TOC) delivery.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
There is also a passenger satisfaction metric in each concession contract. Which is why you see TfL rail handing out sweets and cuddly toys every February
I would argue that quality is almost as important as those three, and that quality at SBB blows quality at the two you've suggested out of the water for long-distance ans regional transport...
Because they've been contracted to make the experience better? The existing/current structure hardly does this either - cases in point being ATW and Serco/Abellio Northern, both of which were let on 'do-nothing' contracts, and nothing was done
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Quality is a bit subjective and to a fair extent encompasses those things - but I still maintain they're the most important. To use an example, TPE have very fancy interiors on the Class 185 - certainly the highest quality interior in the UK, I'd say. The problem is that they are overcrowded, unpunctual and unreliable, and that means they are rubbish, however nice the train is.
It's only really subjective to a point. Cheap fittings are cheap fittings. Lax cleaning is lax cleaning. Going a decade without replacing a carpet is... well, you get the idea. Of course, these things are being turned around fairly comprehensively by WMT and Avanti now.
As for TPE, they've signed for the 15 185s going off lease until the end of the year. Even if things had continued without Covid-19 they'd be fine now. They have an enormous amount of rolling stock, and will continue to do so even if they do give up those 15 units. The leasing company are presumably offering them at cheap rates because they've nowhere else for them to find gainful work and it'd cost money to keep such units stored in serviceable condition, so they may even stick around longer.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
True. But I'd still rather have a mucky train that was always on time and I always got a seat than a nice fancy train on which I had to stand which didn't show up half the time. We really should get both, but the 3 basics are the most important.
True, though I was more referring to their previous state with just the 185s and 350s.
tbwbear
Member
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 263
Looking at the Telegraph article quoted in one of the first posts; it says that Mr Shapps is comparing the new system to Transport for London where the London Overground Lines are run as concessions. It also says that Network Rail could be given the powers to specify and award contracts; which in itself is fascinating as it assumes here has to be a transfer of skills from DfT to NR. (I don't know where the Network Rail suggestion is from - is it Shapps or the Telegraph?)
I appreciate that even the government itself hasn't much of a clue what to do next, but the above suggests to me that Network Rail may be about to be asked to perform a TfL type role and the TOCs become consessions. (a la williams)
If all that happens, what about the marketing, branding and identity of the railway ?
In the TfL model the buses are all painted red and the marketing is done by TfL itself. You don't get any adverts encouraging you to use the number "38 run by Arriva" Most people haven't a clue who runs the bus, except of course, they think TfL run it.
So, would it be safe to assume that the new centralisation will mean the end to the Famous Five and "My LNER" and possibly the emergence of something like "Network Rail make the going easy", or "We are Network Rail and at last we are getting there"
If you are centralising and taking the revenue off them, I am not sure the marketing identities of the TOCs survive that.
That has to be important because one of the larger elephants in the room is the likely semi permanent and probably very significant drop in passenger numbers. There will be a need for marketing and advertising to win them back.
How is the new version of the railway going to sell itself ?
I appreciate that even the government itself hasn't much of a clue what to do next, but the above suggests to me that Network Rail may be about to be asked to perform a TfL type role and the TOCs become consessions. (a la williams)
If all that happens, what about the marketing, branding and identity of the railway ?
In the TfL model the buses are all painted red and the marketing is done by TfL itself. You don't get any adverts encouraging you to use the number "38 run by Arriva" Most people haven't a clue who runs the bus, except of course, they think TfL run it.
So, would it be safe to assume that the new centralisation will mean the end to the Famous Five and "My LNER" and possibly the emergence of something like "Network Rail make the going easy", or "We are Network Rail and at last we are getting there"
If you are centralising and taking the revenue off them, I am not sure the marketing identities of the TOCs survive that.
That has to be important because one of the larger elephants in the room is the likely semi permanent and probably very significant drop in passenger numbers. There will be a need for marketing and advertising to win them back.
How is the new version of the railway going to sell itself ?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Dare I suggest giving a certain Mr Stenning possibly the largest contract he's ever had to brand and market the lot?
Or perhaps whoever did LNER? "This is our InterCity"? You could actually do it with the same brand - the slant would go through the "pointy N" of InterCity instead of LNER, everything else including the livery (and the Azuma brand on 80x) would work as is.
Edit: new thread to continue this line of discussion: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ideas-for-a-brand-for-a-single-english-railway-system.206151/
I think NR would keep the brand's for different regions but there would be far less brands than there are today, so brands such as GWR would remain but be under NR control.
tbwbear
Member
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 263
I think to save cost, and disputes over who is getting more advertising etc.., they might be eventually be better advised to brand on functions rather than regions. Keeping Scotland (which seems to have done a good job already) and Wales apart of course.
I could actually see an Intercity Brand, a Network South Eastern and a Regional brand. You would have to do a bit of rearranging with East Midland and GWR, but most of the TOCs still fit into one of those brands.
I could actually see an Intercity Brand, a Network South Eastern and a Regional brand. You would have to do a bit of rearranging with East Midland and GWR, but most of the TOCs still fit into one of those brands.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
I think there will be different brands for each of the current franchises there will be branding designed and set in the concession specification. The branding will not change when the operator changes
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Network Rail isn't just another arm of the DfT.
It has a quasi-independent statutory rule to operate railway infrastructure, with commercial relationships with all its users, public and private.
It has voting "Members" who are independent of DfT, and income streams from various sources including property.
It is also regulated by ORR and RSSB.
You could just as easily give the franchising role to ORR (in the beginning, OPRAF was independent of government), or to a new version of the SRA.
The dilemma for DfT is that it can only do so much within the present legal structures of the railway industry, before it has to legislate for something new.
This always takes far longer than anyone wants (and will involve the devolved administrations and maybe local government - TfL/PTEs etc).
Any new "national" branding will have to live alongside the remaining franchise/concession operations, some of which still have up to 15 years to run.
It has a quasi-independent statutory rule to operate railway infrastructure, with commercial relationships with all its users, public and private.
It has voting "Members" who are independent of DfT, and income streams from various sources including property.
It is also regulated by ORR and RSSB.
You could just as easily give the franchising role to ORR (in the beginning, OPRAF was independent of government), or to a new version of the SRA.
The dilemma for DfT is that it can only do so much within the present legal structures of the railway industry, before it has to legislate for something new.
This always takes far longer than anyone wants (and will involve the devolved administrations and maybe local government - TfL/PTEs etc).
Any new "national" branding will have to live alongside the remaining franchise/concession operations, some of which still have up to 15 years to run.
tbwbear
Member
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 263
In normal circumstances, yes.
But surely the DfT has power over the franchise operators given that if it terminated the EMA agreements they wouldn't even stick around for 15 days let alone 15 years. I can't see the franchise holders having a lot of real power at this stage. I think many people are underestimating the extent of the fall in passenger numbers and the length of time it will take to recover.
In theory they could protest at being turned into concessions couldn't they?
I bet If someone tells them to paint their trains blue and grey and stick a BR logo on the side with their name in small font underneath, they would do it wouldn't they?
Where did the suggestion about Network Rail come from - was that the Telegraph or Shapps ??
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Network Rail is sort of like BR in a way but without operating any trains. It wouldn't be unduly hard to make that change to it.
I'm not sure what the benefit is of concessions other than making a national rail strike more difficult to arrange.
I'm not sure what the benefit is of concessions other than making a national rail strike more difficult to arrange.
tbwbear
Member
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 263
Indeed.
And if all this happens, and personally I can’t see another way out, we will probably have concessions like LNER and Northern still in the public domain alongside others which are the subsidiaries of state-owned foreign enterprises and a few bus companies.
The relative performance of each of them, given that revenue will no longer be their responsibility, will be interesting. For example, If LNER beats Trenitalia does that mean we can have more public run companies like Trenitalia ourselves ?
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
If you read the July Modern Railways, you will see the Treasury wants to know when the railway finances will be back to a sustainable even keel again, with proper cost control.
HMG also doesn't want to see the back of private capital and management in the industry.
That's more important than carving up the railway to suit the crayonistas.
You are also not going to get the regional bodies (TfN etc) to lose their newly-won control over local services, not to mention devolved Wales and Scotland.
The railway is not what it was in 1993 when the break-up started, and you can't just reinvent BR in fancy new colours.
In Germany and France they are heading for a centralised long-distance operation, with locally controlled regional/commuter services, all up for time-limited contracts.
There are many possible models.
The Treasury will go for the one with the lowest annual subsidy, with something more generous in the capital investment sphere.
- Status