Eagle
Established Member
Not surprising, being as it refers to an entity that no longer exists.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Directly Operated Railways
- Thread starter TheEscapist_
- Start date
- Status
Not surprising, being as it refers to an entity that no longer exists.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I've just checked and although the Act did allow the BRB to bid in theory, it was the decision of OPRAF to not allow bids from the BRB as there was the risk it would have reduced the number of private sector bidders.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It actually does still exist: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/27433/response/67765/attach/3/270110 0 BEN HARRIS FOI.pdf
Eagle
Established Member
Looking through their website, it seems they're just there to own anything that's left over from privatization (property and disused structures mainly) and disposing of it where necessary.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Mainly they existed to maintain the maintenence of non-operational structures like bridges and tunnels on disused lines. Things that would have been a large liability for a private operator, financed by selling off a lot of valuable development land. If a former BR employee makes a legal claim (for example work related injury or illness like asbetos exposure) they are also the ones picking up the tab.
Course they are down now to less than 105 commercial properties left worth £21m from the tens of thousands they started with, they generate rent of £3.3m a year. Meanwhile it has 4,000 'burdensome' liabilities, structures that require maintaining costing £7.5 per year. Local councils occasionally buy these structures for entertainment or leisure purposes but usually try not to as they still cost tens of thousands to maintain.
They also have 7 properties they are not allowed to sell as its thought they may return to operational use,
Bristol freight terminal
- Glasgow Eastfield depot
- Leeds Hunslet sidings
- Old Dalby test track
- Temple Mills bus depot
- North Pole International Depot
- Waterloo International Terminal
Course they are down now to less than 105 commercial properties left worth £21m from the tens of thousands they started with, they generate rent of £3.3m a year. Meanwhile it has 4,000 'burdensome' liabilities, structures that require maintaining costing £7.5 per year. Local councils occasionally buy these structures for entertainment or leisure purposes but usually try not to as they still cost tens of thousands to maintain.
They also have 7 properties they are not allowed to sell as its thought they may return to operational use,
Bristol freight terminal
- Glasgow Eastfield depot
- Leeds Hunslet sidings
- Old Dalby test track
- Temple Mills bus depot
- North Pole International Depot
- Waterloo International Terminal
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Yup so I'd imagine it will be with DORs for a while to come.
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
Until December 2013 when the new franchise starts - I can't see nobody bidding for it!
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
There has been serious interest in the next franchise (as previously mentioned on here as 'rumours').
Virgin can have it just to keep their name on something.
Eagle
Established Member
That's assuming they won't win the WC this year...
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
I sincerely hope that the franchise is awarded to who presents the best plans, not to keep a brand going!
I know, that was a joke.
Schnellzug
Established Member
that's always the trouble, isn't it. It's who makes the most Promises, not who's done best with previous franchises.
Not so much a merger, but I'd prefer bigger / more integrated franchise areas.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Eagle
Established Member
Tiny Tim
Member
Do we learn nothing from history? We've been here before. After WWI our network was run by a multiplicity of companies; It was clear to everybody, including the railway companies, that this was an untenable situation. In 1923 the 'Big Four' came into being, a model more recently favoured by John Major. Eventually, and I think inevitably, nationalisation happened in 1947. Presently we're back in about 1920, discovering why grouping and/or renationalisation happened. Longer, larger, vertically integrated franchises are just 'grouping' 21st century style. Eventually we will realise what a dreadful mistake it's all been and return to an internationally proven system of state run railways. What's it going to be called this time; 'Railways Britain'?
Our present Conservative-led government is ideologically opposed to renationalisation, despite quite strong economic arguments for it. Labour (surprisingly) aren't committed to it, either. But, in one form or another, it will happen.
[Is this contentious enough?]
Our present Conservative-led government is ideologically opposed to renationalisation, despite quite strong economic arguments for it. Labour (surprisingly) aren't committed to it, either. But, in one form or another, it will happen.
[Is this contentious enough?]
Not exactly. A company like the LNER owned track, trains, workshops, docks, ferries, hotels and pretty much anything needed to keep the railway running. It was a massive, joint-stock enterprise. Planning for new trains and even new routes was a heck of a lot shorter, because only one company would have to agree to them. There was no need to invite to tender, Gresley came up with a design, the board made the decision to commit the money, Doncaster Plant was informed and before long there was a locomotive rolling through the doors. That seems much more efficient and is certainly quicker.
Thing is, splitting up the infrastructure like that is currently very difficult, and will shortly become impossible. Regional signalling control centres are the biggest problem. Imagine if the new London South Eastern one ends up in the hands of the Southern. It would still control lines owned by its rivals. The other three would have to build their own centres and recommission loads of new signalling to regain control of their own trains. Similarly, if the LNER were to get control of Neville Hill depot, they would be within their rights to evict all LMS rolling stock. The LMS would need a new depot in Sheffield to take it all on.
I reckon the railways should never have been nationalised, or perhaps privatised in around 1956, restoring the Big 4. They have been used as a political football ever since. However, we're stuck with it.
Accounting for infrastructure and operations would still have to be separate though due to the EU directive. The GWR operations department would for example have to pay the GWR infrastructure department a track access charge and also allow others to access their track under Open Access.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
They would also have to invite other bids to do the work, thats where the delay comes from.
Maybe by Network Rail taking control all the TOCs, ROSCO's and FOCs would the way the government indirectly takes full control of the system, remember Thacher was not keen on a sell of BR (though the non-core operations were sold), what she did was try and make BR more profitable
Until then there should be mergers of TOC's for example:
South West Trains/Southern/Southeastern
East Coast/First Hull Trains/Grand Central
Virgin Trains/London Midland/First TransPennine Express (WCML Services)
Northern Rail/Merseyrail/First TransPennine Express (Apart from WCML Services)
First Great Western/Crossrail/Greater Anglia
Tiny Tim
Member
The present situation is indeed the result of a political football match. I have no ideological commitment to a nationalised railway, but I do believe a single body would be more efficient. A 'Big Four' model might work, but it's only a 'halfway house' between the present shambles and a proper, unitary railway authority. Frankly, I couldn't care less who actually owns the railways, it's not something I'd want for Christmas, but I do care that my taxes are used efficiently to provide good infrastructure and services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is exactly what I'm saying -creeping renationalisation. It won't be called that, it's politically unacceptable. Instead we use terms like 'vertical integration' and 'merger' to mask the inevitable return to a single, (probably) state run railway.
There are many people though that would prefer that no taxpayers money was used for this and that it should be left to the free market. This is not my personal opinion but I any suggestion that the taxpayer should be funding infastrucure and services will be met by resistance by these people.
Tiny Tim
Member
I think we, as taxpayers, have to accept that railways need support from the public purse. It's possible to 'cherry pick' isolated activities that make money, but overall, especially when it comes to investment, we're signing the cheques. If it was left to the free market? See the Serpell Report of 1983, option A.
With the likely decline of the private car in the medium term though, could there be a market for the railways to be run on a fully commercial basis? I wouldn't want this personally but if people still need to travel and can't afford a car then it may well be that the railways could be run this way in the future.
Tiny Tim
Member
I'm afraid my crystal ball is away being cleaned presently. When it comes back I hope it tells me you're right.
The point here is that we have to start planning for the railways to be the primary form of transport as the private car is not likely to be affordable to most people long term. It's no good just saying wait and we will see how it all works out as these decisions need to be made now to avoid chaos if and when the private car is no longer an option. The question is if in this case rail should be provided as a public service or on a fully commercial basis?
Tiny Tim
Member
There's nothing to stop a railway that formerly needed cash support from making a profit. If the shareholders happen to be the taxpayer, that's even better. The decision as to whether railways are a commercial enterprise or not was taken long ago. Option 'A' in the 1983 Serpell report was entitled 'A Commercial Railway'. It wasn't the government's preferred option.
For a map of Sir David Serpell's recommendation for 'A Commercial Railway' see map on page 69 of:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Serpell001.pdf
If you thought Beeching was bad........
For a map of Sir David Serpell's recommendation for 'A Commercial Railway' see map on page 69 of:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Serpell001.pdf
If you thought Beeching was bad........
- Status