South Western Railway nationalisation time.

Djgr said:

I have to say that if catering trolleys is the current main issue on your railway service then you truly have been enjoying privileged services.

Click to expand...

As a resident in SWR's territory, I can assure you that lack of catering is a long way down the list of problems. Lack of enough trains to operate even the current cut-back timetable is around the top of the list.

DelW said:

As a resident in SWR's territory, I can assure you that lack of catering is a long way down the list of problems. Lack of enough trains to operate even the current cut-back timetable is around the top of the list.

Click to expand...

Yes, lack of trains and poor punctuality and reliability. The basics! These need to be got right before anything else.

Djgr said:

Generally choices rather than strictly requirements

Click to expand...

norbitonflyer said:

Generally, but not universally. Intolerance to gluten, lactose, nuts, etc are real and have to be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Also at the end of the day train catering is there to make money. If they can't cater for a large section of the market then it's not going to make money.

thenorthern said:

Also at the end of the day train catering is there to make money.

Click to expand...

One of the problems in the UK is the obsession that everything must make money on its own individual basis. The major train operators elsewhere in Europe will readily admit that catering does not stand on its own two feet and never will, but that it is an important part of the overall product and the disbenefit of removing it would outweigh the money saved.

Goldfish62 said:

One of the problems in the UK is the obsession that everything must make money on its own individual basis. The major train operators elsewhere in Europe will readily admit that catering does not stand on its own two feet and never will, but that it is an important part of the overall product and the disbenefit of removing it would outweigh the money saved.

Click to expand...

Agreed

43066 said:

The business case for catering might stack up for some operators as a “value add”. Probably more the case for long distance than SWR though, admittedly.

Click to expand...

For me the SWR services to Weymouth and Exeter are no less "InterCity" than what GWR and Cross Country offer, so there may be a case for doing something with them in the future.

However, as I think we all agree, there much bigger fish to fry in the short to medium term!

norbitonflyer said:

Generally, but not universally. Intolerance to gluten, lactose, nuts, etc are real and have to be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Whilst true, think of a trolley in the aisle of a plane and the extent to which, for example, different choices of milk are or are not catered for.

Realistically catering on a train is going to struggle with niche requirements.

Goldfish62 said:

One of the problems in the UK is the obsession that everything must make money on its own individual basis. The major train operators elsewhere in Europe will readily admit that catering does not stand on its own two feet and never will, but that it is an important part of the overall product and the disbenefit of removing it would outweigh the money saved.

Click to expand...

Goldfish62 said:

For me the SWR services to Weymouth and Exeter are no less "InterCity" than what GWR and Cross Country offer, so there may be a case for doing something with them in the future.

However, as I think we all agree, there much bigger fish to fry in the short to medium term!

Click to expand...

The Rail Minister has said they will be looking at whether there is a case for on-train catering to return at SWR however as it will be the Treasury paying for it, it will ultimately come down to whether the Business Case shows it would make more money than it costs.

I agree that having those kind of amenities can make the train journey nicer for people, but i'm sceptical on whether their added benefit in 'customer retention' makes up the loss of the service itself. How many people refuse to travel down to Weymouth (for example) as the train doesn't have a trolley?

I didn't realise until viewing Rail Minister Peter Hendy's interview by Green Signals that the new MD of SWR, Lawrence Bowman, also has responsibility for the NR Wessex infrastructure, forming an integrated unit.
This did exist briefly as a trial in SWT days, by agreement between NR and Stagecoach, but the new structure is intended to be the long-term GBR mode of operation.
Thus one person owns the TOC and NR budgets for the operation. Apparently Southeastern will have the same structure soon.
The interview, which features SWR issues several times, can be viewed here.

LNW-GW Joint said:

I didn't realise until viewing Rail Minister Peter Hendy's interview by Green Signals that the new MD of SWR, Lawrence Bowman, also has responsibility for the NR Wessex infrastructure, forming an integrated unit.
This did exist briefly as a trial in SWT days, by agreement between NR and Stagecoach, but the new structure is intended to be the long-term GBR mode of operation.
Thus one person owns the TOC and NR budgets for the operation. Apparently Southeastern will have the same structure soon.
The interview, which features SWR issues several times, can be viewed here.

Click to expand...

Yes, I knew that vertical integration was on the cards for SWR later this year, but what I didn't realise is that the new MD, who remains an employee of Network Rail, has taken responsibility for the infrastructure from Day One.

Also mentioned in the interview was that there is no longer a formal commercial contract between SWR and the DfT. The MD is instead set targets in terms of improving performance, reducing costs (getting rid of all those pesky contractual agreements and associates legal fees should help enormously) and, importantly, growing revenue.

Currently, as of last Sunday, the MD has responsibility for two balance sheets, operations (SWR) and infrastructure (NR). Later this year that will become one merged balance sheet.

Goldfish62 said:

Also mentioned in the interview was that there is no longer a formal commercial contract between SWR and the DfT. The MD is instead set targets in terms of improving performance, reducing costs (getting rid of all those pesky contractual agreements and associates legal fees should help enormously) and, importantly, growing revenue.

Click to expand...

Hang on, sorry, what specifically does this mean for SWR?

lordbusiness said:

As a rule of thumb, if you take someone's salary and multiply it by 1.5 that will give you roughly what their total cost is to the business so 20k equals 50k. To offer a viable catering service, even on a shortish route for most of the day needs more than one person, so even 10 extra staff will cost you 500k pa minimum. That's an awful lot of kitkats and cups of tea to make a profit.

Click to expand...

20k x 1.5 is 30k? Not so huge, but still significant…

vuzzeho said:

Hang on, sorry, what specifically does this mean for SWR?

Click to expand...

As it says. The MD is responsible for operations and infrastructure, and will need be focused on sorting things out rather than indulging in the privatised, fragmented railway's favourite occupation of finding someone else to blame.

Goldfish62 said:

As it says. The MD is responsible for operations and infrastructure, and will need be focused on sorting things out rather than indulging in the privatised, fragmented railway's favourite occupation of finding someone else to blame.

Click to expand...

That's great, but I meant more like what improvements could we see because of this? Does this mean less DfT micromanagement, as people say?

vuzzeho said:

That's great, but I meant more like what improvements could we see because of this? Does this mean less DfT micromanagement, as people say?

Click to expand...

Sorry, understand what you mean now.

Yes, essentially, because there's no contract for the DfT to micromanage. Plus Lawrence Bowman will be directly answerable to DfT Operator rather than the DfT. DfT Operator is by headed experienced railway people.

Goldfish62 said:

Sorry, understand what you mean now.

Yes, essentially, because there's no contract for the DfT to micromanage. Plus Lawrence Bowman will be directly answerable to DfT Operator rather than the DfT. DfT Operator is by headed experienced railway people.

Click to expand...

Thank you! That's good, then. Hopefully, we'll see these improvements coming in.

That's very good news. Experienced railway people were largely absent from the privatised railway. The cost of catering is not relevant on a nationalised railway, providing a public service is. No shareholders to take peoples eye off the ball, which is running a railway. The same trouble Thames Water is having.

Brush 4 said:

The cost of catering is not relevant on a nationalised railway, providing a public service is. No shareholders to take peoples eye off the ball, which is running a railway.

Click to expand...

Costs will be relevant. There is still going to be a budget and a need to cut cloth accordingly.

Brush 4 said:

That's very good news. Experienced railway people were largely absent from the privatised railway. The cost of catering is not relevant on a nationalised railway, providing a public service is. No shareholders to take peoples eye off the ball, which is running a railway. The same trouble Thames Water is having.

Click to expand...

The cost of everything is still absolutely relevant. No public service should be a bottomless money pit.

Brush 4 said:

Experienced railway people were largely absent from the privatised railway.

Click to expand...

Let's put that myth to bed here and now. A large percentage of those in operational roles and behind the scenes planning etc during the privatised years (SW for one, as this is the area under scrutiny at the moment, but no different to others) were ex BR people, who stayed with the privatised railway. It is only very recently that many of those ex BR people have transitioned to retirement (due to age), but their knowledge and experience has been passed on to some very good (younger) people over recent years, and it is they who will drive the industry forward, provided they are allowed to do so without unnecessary interference and scheming from politicians and the like.

My apologies. Rant over

What will nationalisation mean to the average fare-paying passenger? Will anything change in the short term? I need to purchase some advance tickets from SWR and don't want them to be invalid at the time of use if SWR as a company "ceases to exist"

Islineclear3_1 said:

What will nationalisation mean to the average fare-paying passenger?

Click to expand...

Aside from maybe a new polo shirt and/or sticker on the train, nothing. SWR have explicitly said that advances remain valid.

Islineclear3_1 said:

What will nationalisation mean to the average fare-paying passenger? Will anything change in the short term? I need to purchase some advance tickets from SWR and don't want them to be invalid at the time of use if SWR as a company "ceases to exist"

Click to expand...

Nothing changes regarding tickets, delay repay, etc, etc. It’s all explicitly stated on their website, there’s a web page with appropriate FAQs. But SWR as a company has already ‘ceased to exist’, so if you haven’t already bought the tickets how can there now be a problem?

From today, Sunday 25th May 2025 the operation of all SWR services has transferred into public ownership and is being managed by DFTO (DfT Operator Ltd).

The transfer does not impact on your planned journeys, tickets or timetables and all current tickets remain valid.

Click to expand...

Islineclear3_1 said:

What will nationalisation mean to the average fare-paying passenger?

Click to expand...

Very little, if anything in the short term , is my best guess. Lets forget this on-line focus on 'branding', in as a new sticker on the side of one unit, or however many units going forwards. It's just part of the political spin process, end of. There are noticeably a small number of contributors to this forum who are either still in (or ex) the industry or who understand the reality of things going forward (no names, no pack drill). The reality is that the industry needs to get back to basics - running trains on time (ie: as advertised to the fare paying public), and doing so with the booked formations (or number of cars).

In relation to the latter point, the 701 roll out, formations on the suburban side in general will be fluid for as long as that process takes, so there will likely be occasions of short forms, and (regrettably) some cancellations. I would estimate that one new 10 car 701 diagram would be planned to enter service every fortnight going forward.

Going OT to a degree, but with the best of intensions to explain what I mean;

It has to be remembered that technical problems with the units aside (preventing entry to service), the planners, having already planned their various (dates) of engineering works and other alterations (mid week and weekends) well in advance of date of operation, and having moved on to their next allotted workstream(s), will have to return to previously completed workstreams and make numerous alterations there to, in (initially) stock diagram, but also associated crew diagram and timings aspects, with every new single 10 car 701 introduction (this includes diagrams changes - stock and crew in order that all stock types are 'balanced' at each location with every increase in 701 diagrams - it is rarely a simple one for one process), as the go ahead for the latest 10 car 701 to enter service will at best be perhaps two weeks notice. Any such late changes out of the norm (on a regular basis) will also involve the good will of the train crew side on the ground.
That sort of (additional) work overlapping of previously completed workstreams, is a hard bullet to swallow for all, planners, train crew, controllers etc., and can only be kept in check for so long, there is only so much overtime 'one' can work, before people doing those jobs start to lose the plot, without having additional (personnel) resources to assist.

Thank you @Big Jumby 74 - very detailed response as always. Yes, I appreciate the challenges; the 701s do not affect me at all given that my (infrequent) travels on SWR are usually on 450s or 444s

Good luck to all the staff involved who have to deal with the planning and the transition and possibly uncertain challenges that lie ahead, at least in the short term but you're right; trains need to turn up, on time, and with enough carriages to suit the demand.

swt_passenger said:

Nothing changes regarding tickets, delay repay, etc, etc. It’s all explicitly stated on their website, there’s a web page with appropriate FAQs. But SWR as a company has already ‘ceased to exist’, so if you haven’t already bought the tickets how can there now be a problem?

Click to expand...

Good to know and reassuring. I can now book tickets with confidence

Goldfish62 said:

One of the problems in the UK is the obsession that everything must make money on its own individual basis. The major train operators elsewhere in Europe will readily admit that catering does not stand on its own two feet and never will, but that it is an important part of the overall product and the disbenefit of removing it would outweigh the money saved.

Click to expand...

Djgr said:

Agreed

Click to expand...

It's got to make money as otherwise you end up with other passengers / taxpayers paying for people to have coffee on trains which would be very difficult to justify.

Overall though it will be interesting to see what model the new state owned railway goes. It's often said fares are cheaper on the continent which is true although that is largely down to the fact that on the continent railways get much much more in subsidies than the they do in the United Kingdom rather than private companies making huge profits. I think there will be a lot of disappointed people when nationalisation happens.

thenorthern said:

It's got to make money as otherwise you end up with other passengers / taxpayers paying for people to have coffee on trains which would be very difficult to justify.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that every individual element of the overall journey experience has to make money in itself because where do you stop with that? So I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one and just leave it like that.

Goldfish62 said:

I don't agree that every individual element of the overall journey experience has to make money in itself because where do you stop with that? So I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one and just leave it like that.

Click to expand...

Well, if we go back to the early days of railways, things like seats, roofs and windows were regarded as optional extras, only provided to holders of more expensive classes of ticket.

See also the occasional re-emergence of stories that budget airlines are planning to eliminate seats and er, "pack 'em perpendicular" to use a rail related phrase .

with catering, I don’t understand why the rail companies don’t just give the opportunity for a small catering firm or local sandwich man to come onto the train at a particular stop and then get off again at another part of the network.

VItraveller said:

with catering, I don’t understand why the rail companies don’t just give the opportunity for a small catering firm or local sandwich man to come onto the train at a particular stop and then get off again at another part of the network.

Click to expand...

Because that’s privatisation… and if everyone employed on the railway comes under GBR, then it undermines the role of customer hosts on other parts of the network who would have been historically employed under a different TOC.