DfT OLR and TPE Transpennine Collation of Business Plan Commitments

[Snow1964]

Issued today (2nd January) by DfT

Collation of Business Commitments 2024-25

Covers all sorts of things, including as examples
passenger assistance awareness through social media (section 6)
fleet collaboration strategy (section 11)
new uniforms during FY 25-26 (section 22)
light refurb of 185s (section 26)
Single Leg pricing (section 49)

Sadly Heidi Alexander (or previous Secretary of State) seems to have had various info (including dates) redacted in their name, so timescales are unclear

Rather too long to quote in full

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/676413b33229e84d9bbde8c0/dft-olr-transpennine-2023-business-plan-commitments-2024-2025.pdf

I am sure some points warrant discussion (and are clearly the way DfT is thinking and the way it want things to happen)

 

[I_am_Nobody]

That’s an interesting document, thanks for sharing! It is… also somewhat time-travelly given some of the dates are in the past. Hmmmm.

When it comes to uniform, I thought it would have been a better plan for GBR to handle this in the future. Do a bulk order for the whole of the industry, and get the best deal and kit possible.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not sure what value to place on a document issued by the last government's DfT in March 2024.
It wouldn't reflect the intention for a fully government-owned railway (bar open access), or whatever form of GBR the present government intends.
At some point, I expect this document will be superseded by a Labour GBR version with wider applicability.

 

[Bevan Price]

Looks a bit like too much micro-management (a.k.a. meddling) by DfT

 

[Adam Williams]

Fares Simplification - Single Leg Pricing (SLP) Proposal REV4-001

The Operator shall provide a report by 12 September 2024 with a proposal for what Single Leg Pricing (SLP) could look like on the TPT network, along
with high-level analysis on commercial impacts and seek RNP approval including a date when this will be implemented

Presumably FoIable if folks were so inclined?

Personal view: I don't really like how it reads like a foregone conclusion, to be implemented without consultation.

 

[coppercapped]

Thank you for finding this document.

What strikes me is not so much the details it contains but the fact that the DfT requires so much information and issues so many instructions to the train operators.

It is not surprising that the staff at the train operators’ staff perceive the DfT to be their customer as responding to all these requests/requirements will certainly take more management time and effort than responding to questions about travel plans.

And someone in the DfT has taken the time to write 16 pages of instructions and then edited it it was published to make sure it meets the Freedom of Information requirements.

Is it surprising that passengers come off second best?

 

[43066]

Thank you for finding this document.

What strikes me is not so much the details it contains but the fact that the DfT requires so much information and issues so many instructions to the train operators.

It is not surprising that the staff at the train operators’ staff perceive the DfT to be their customer as responding to all these requests/requirements will certainly take more management time and effort than responding to questions about travel plans.

And someone in the DfT has taken the time to write 16 pages of instructions and then edited it it was published to make sure it meets the Freedom of Information requirements.

Is it surprising that passengers come off second best?

It’s surely more surprising that anyone is still remotely surprised by any of the above!

 

[YorkshireBear]

It’s surely more surprising that anyone is still remotely surprised by any of the above!

Just confirms what we all knew agreed it's not remotely a suprise.

What a shock railway managers are struggling to manage the railway when they are running round sorting all this out.

 

[Class 170101]

Fares Simplification - Single Leg Pricing (SLP) Proposal REV4-001

Worrying that DfT seem to be pursuing this whilst still trialling it on LNER. Surely this trial needs to reach its finish point and be evaluated before going any further?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Worrying that DfT seem to be pursuing this whilst still trialling it on LNER. Surely this trial needs to reach its finish point and be evaluated before going any further?

Single fare pricing and "simple fares" aren't quite the same thing to be fair.

 

[coppercapped]

It’s surely more surprising that anyone is still remotely surprised by any of the above!

Just confirms what we all knew agreed it's not remotely a suprise.

What a shock railway managers are struggling to manage the railway when they are running round sorting all this out.

I am not remotely surprised - but many other commentators seem to expect that the railways are run for the benefit of the passengers...

But take this as an warning for what to expect in the future...just think how the railways will sink by the weight of the bureaucracy when the operators really do become part of Government.

The pressure for more reports and studies and 'best endeavours' will only increase — and the day job will recede even further into the background. Look what has happened to the NHS (one of the only two surviving industries nationalised by the Attlee government, the other being the Bank of England) — I now need to go through a 'triage' system before I may be allowed to speak to, let alone see, a doctor. In future I will rock up at Reading station and be questioned as to why I need to use a capacity limited 5 coach IET to get to London when my needs could be met at lower cost to the operator by using a less overcrowded service via Bracknell or a seat could be found for me if I were to travel via Oxford and Bicester.

I jest, but not much...

 

[158801]

There’s reference to a 7th high speed path between Newcastle and Northallerton which is going t8 be delivered by Network Rail. This will enable a second train per hour between Newcastle and Manchester.

Does anyone know when this proposed 7th path is likely to be introduced ?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Looks a bit like too much micro-management (a.k.a. meddling) by DfT

Agreed. Which I thought GBR was supposed to lessen their micromanaging.

 

[43066]

But take this as an warning for what to expect in the future...just think how the railways will sink by the weight of the bureaucracy when the operators really do become part of Government.

Absolutely.

Some other topical issues are notable by their absence - the “people” section includes school work experience engagement, D&I etc. as you would expect, but nothing at all is said about the ageing workforce, reliance on overtime, depot establishment levels and so on.

 

[DerekC]

I think this document is being misinterpreted. It sets out the business plan commitments Transpennine has signed up to in 2024/25 under its Direct Award from DfT, which dates back to May 2023. So I appreciate that the trend just now is to blame the current government for absolutely everything, but this is definitely a hangover from the previous one. We can still hope that GBR (Labour Style) will see such things improve.

 

[3RDGEN]

There’s reference to a 7th high speed path between Newcastle and Northallerton which is going t8 be delivered by Network Rail. This will enable a second train per hour between Newcastle and Manchester.

Does anyone know when this proposed 7th path is likely to be introduced ?

It will be one of the outputs of the TRU so early 2030's, once the Huddersfield to York part of TRU is complete there should be capacity for extra TPE services and that will allow the reinstatement of the second hourly Newcastle to Manchester TPE service. It's detailed in these TfN meeting minutes, "https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/documents/s10132/East Coast Main Line Timetable.pdf", sections 4.4 to 4.7.

The extra revenue from the ECML timetable changes is expected by TfN to be used to part pay for the ECML infrastructure improvements required for the 7th York to Newcastle path which supports the TRU work. The second TPE path north of York from winter 2019 has in effect gone to LNER in the short term as TPE can't use it.

Agreed. Which I thought GBR was supposed to lessen their micromanaging.

The DfT/Treasury pay the bills so they run the show. The senior appointments of GBR, as they where with BR, will be government appointments/puppets so GBR will be doing the micromanaging on their behalf. Anyone expect the DfT to stay out of it is in dreamland, the second the economy dips the DfT will tell GBR their expected budget has just been cut.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I struggle to understand how an ‘entity’ such as TransPennine Express as a train operator but not involved in infrastructure will even exist by the 2030s under a single vertically integrated [English] GBR. So why a long-term ‘business plan’ going far beyond their existence?

 

[3RDGEN]

I struggle to understand how an ‘entity’ such as TransPennine Express as a train operator but not involved in infrastructure will even exist by the 2030s under a single vertically integrated [English] GBR. So why a long-term ‘business plan’ going far beyond their existence?

I would expect Transpennine to continue to exist under GBR and since GBR only has an handful of staff who is going to put together a long term plan if not those currently running the service? TPE is already nationalised and the mass majority of existing TPE staff will still be running the service under GBR anyway so let them get on with it.

 

[vuzzeho]

So wait, am I correct in understanding that this is a hangover from the last government and not representative of what the current government wants?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I struggle to understand how an ‘entity’ such as TransPennine Express as a train operator but not involved in infrastructure will even exist by the 2030s under a single vertically integrated [English] GBR. So why a long-term ‘business plan’ going far beyond their existence?

We still have no idea how DfT Rail + NR + TOCs will transmogrify into GBR.
NR has its budget set until 2029 (CP7), and the TOCs have their National Rail Contracts with various commitments and termination dates.
You'd maybe expect DOL TOCs to be the first to converge, but until then they have to continue under the current legal structures.
New uniforms would seem to be the least important element of TPE's tasks in the near future, unless it represents the GBR brand which seems unlikely.

I wonder why today's DfT would want to publish such a document?
What we need is the consultation document/green/white paper on the proposed structure of GBR and its powers.

 

[Snow1964]

I think this document is being misinterpreted. It sets out the business plan commitments Transpennine has signed up to in 2024/25 under its Direct Award from DfT, which dates back to May 2023. So I appreciate that the trend just now is to blame the current government for absolutely everything, but this is definitely a hangover from the previous one. We can still hope that GBR (Labour Style) will see such things improve.

Doesn't help when DfT chooses to publish it 6 months after new Labour Government started, and it is full of dates (both redactions and deadlines) which fall under current Government.

You would have thought if they wanted it to be associated with previous Government they would have released it much earlier, so they could say that's what they inherited, rather than waiting until 2025 amongst other new Government announcements

 

[43066]

Doesn't help when DfT chooses to publish it 6 months after new Labour Government started, and it is full of dates (both redactions and deadlines) which fall under current Government.

You would have thought if they wanted it to be associated with previous Government they would have released it much earlier, so they could say that's what they inherited, rather than waiting until 2025 amongst other new Government announcements

Although of course the DfT is still the same group of civil servants, doing the same projects, despite the change in government. So it doesn’t necessarily follow that there will be a “clean sweep” of existing projects. Obviously the government will influence them in relation to high level policy matters, eg in relation to resolving the industrial dispute, and the decision to continue in the direction of GBR at all.

 

[mpthomson]

I am not remotely surprised - but many other commentators seem to expect that the railways are run for the benefit of the passengers...

But take this as an warning for what to expect in the future...just think how the railways will sink by the weight of the bureaucracy when the operators really do become part of Government.

The pressure for more reports and studies and 'best endeavours' will only increase — and the day job will recede even further into the background. Look what has happened to the NHS (one of the only two surviving industries nationalised by the Attlee government, the other being the Bank of England) — I now need to go through a 'triage' system before I may be allowed to speak to, let alone see, a doctor. In future I will rock up at Reading station and be questioned as to why I need to use a capacity limited 5 coach IET to get to London when my needs could be met at lower cost to the operator by using a less overcrowded service via Bracknell or a seat could be found for me if I were to travel via Oxford and Bicester.

I jest, but not much...

The part of the NHS that patients use most and that you are routinely triaged for, ie primary care/ GP provision has never been nationalised. The large majority of GP practices remain private businesses doing NHS contract work amongst other things.

 

[DerekC]

So wait, am I correct in understanding that this is a hangover from the last government and not representative of what the current government wants?

Yes. You have to understand that when a new government comes in, the wheels of contracts that have already been put in place keep revolving until either the contract expires or the Civil Service, on instruction from the new government, cancels it. The publication of this document is the result of just such a set of routine wheels revolving. Think about it - if the Civil Service just stopped everything and waited for new instructions, the result would be chaos.

 

[Bald Rick]

To put this into context, it is a summary. And compared to franchise agreements (which included ‘committed obligations’) it is very, very brief!

 

[Bevan Price]

Although of course the DfT is still the same group of civil servants, doing the same projects, despite the change in government. So it doesn’t necessarily follow that there will be a “clean sweep” of existing projects. Obviously the government will influence them in relation to high level policy matters, eg in relation to resolving the industrial dispute, and the decision to continue in the direction of GBR at all.

The problem is that the senior civil service has a history of making a bo-lox *** of so many different projects that it is hard to believe that anything they do will make the railway system better rather than worse.

(*** Military equipment contracts, NHS IT, to name just two)

 

[Halish Railway]

Interesting that it explicitly names Manchester Airport as the terminus for the second Newcastle train. Not sure how keen Greater Manchester and Northwest folk would be on an additional train on the Ordsall Chord and Castlefield Corridor.

It’s also a bit odd to talk about the second Newcastle train whilst not mentioning other long term plans such as stock for TRU, an additional Manchester to Sheffield service and additional capacity on the West Coast Mainline, unless the necessary works for the additional Newcastle train can be done in the next few years.

 

[SamYeager]

To put this into context, it is a summary. And compared to franchise agreements (which included ‘committed obligations’) it is very, very brief!

As Sir Humphrey of 'Yes Prime Minister' once said "Weeks and weeks of productive work!". We just never realised at the time that the programme was a documentary masquerading as a comedy.

 

[Class 170101]

The DfT/Treasury pay the bills so they run the show. The senior appointments of GBR, as they where with BR, will be government appointments/muppets so GBR will be doing the micromanaging on their behalf. Anyone expect the DfT to stay out of it is in dreamland, the second the economy dips the DfT will tell GBR their expected budget has just been cut.

Corrected that for you

 

[Clarence Yard]

As Sir Humphrey of 'Yes Prime Minister' once said "Weeks and weeks of productive work!". We just never realised at the time that the programme was a documentary masquerading as a comedy.

Actually, and I am being serious here, some of the civil servants I have met regarded “Yes, Minister” as a source of very good training material.

The annual business plan process is an integral part of the National Rail Contract for that TOC. Chapter 7.7 of each NRC goes into all the details. The annual business plan commitments usually get published (eventually and heavily redacted) on the DfT website.

Whilst TOCs are legally separate entities and subject to individual NRCs, this process is likely to continue. I suspect that GBR will be the subject of the usual annual and five yearly Government funding and reporting rules so they won’t escape Government scrutiny and instruction, even if the ORR control periods and periodic reviews are abolished.