GBR - "A railway fit for Britain’s future" consultation

[Horizon22]

Interestingly the public consultation on devolution has also come out today.

I’m quite sceptical about how much elected mayors outside major urban locations should have power regarding “managing, planning and developing” the rail network - or indeed want to do that - and how that will help rail professionals actually deal with the issues as opposed to pandering to particular interests.

 

[Harpo]

I’m quite sceptical about how much elected mayors outside major urban locations should have power regarding “managing, planning and developing” the rail network - or indeed want to do that - and how that will help rail professionals actually deal with the issues as opposed to pandering to particular interests.

Quite. With GBR bringing network harmonisation potential, mayoral transport devolution undermines that.

 

[JonathanH]

I’m quite sceptical about how much elected mayors outside major urban locations should have power regarding “managing, planning and developing” the rail network - or indeed want to do that - and how that will help rail professionals actually deal with the issues as opposed to pandering to particular interests.

It really doesn't seem consistent to be trying to build an organisation which has sole responsibility for the railway, then introducing other vested interests to meddle in what that organisation delivers.

 

[jack31439]

Interestingly the public consultation on devolution has also come out today.

I’m quite sceptical about how much elected mayors outside major urban locations should have power regarding “managing, planning and developing” the rail network - or indeed want to do that - and how that will help rail professionals actually deal with the issues as opposed to pandering to particular interests.

Absolutely. If the focus is so clearly on removing boundaries and making it simpler, why would adding extra levels of local governance help at all? Are mayoral offices full of rail professionals with brilliant ideas? Or just people who wish to serve specific agendas to suit their needs (and the people they represent) best, causing further dispute and delay.

 

[KNN]

Absolutely. If the focus is so clearly on removing boundaries and making it simpler, why would adding extra levels of local governance help at all? Are mayoral offices full of rail professionals with brilliant ideas? Or just people who wish to serve specific agendas to suit their needs (and the people they represent) best, causing further dispute and delay.

I don't see it as a contradiction, as long as they collaborate. A service which doesn't suit the cities or regions it connects isn't going fit the criteria GBR are meant to be aiming for.

 

[swt_passenger]

She did an interview on LBC this morning around 8am, so presumably other news outlets as well, with the usual rhetoric about things like removing staff involved in delay attribution and blame, avoiding the need for split ticketing, pay as you go having a 'best price guarantee', leaking money to the private sector, better value for the taxpayer etc

Odd, given how often that knowledgeable insiders have said there’ll still be delay attribution, as there was under BR. It needs to be collaborative rather than antagonistic, but it’ll still be there.

 

[JonathanH]

Odd, given how often that knowledgeable insiders have said there’ll still be delay attribution, as there was under BR. It needs to be collaborative rather than antagonistic, but it’ll still be there.

I think she suggested that trains should run on time in the first place, but clearly that has always been the desire.

From the consultation document:

We need a railway that passengers can trust. Whether they are making a one-off trip or setting off on their daily commute, people must be able to see and feel that the railway is working to serve them. That means having confidence that their train will be on time, with delays no longer seen as an inevitable fact of daily life.

Clearly duplication of non-frontline staff is seen as a cost that can be saved in GBR.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

. Passengers will travel on GBR trains, running on GBR tracks, and arrive at GBR stations – all run by the expert leadership of a single organisation in line with a clear strategic direction set by the Secretary of State.

This is the key statement I think - so BR Mk 2 apart from OA, Freight and Merseyrail. Network Rail will be the base company from which GBR is formed.

The devolved authorities will have a 'role' but not operate the trains - so very much like the PTEs of old.

I welcome it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think she suggested that trains should run on time in the first place, but clearly that has always been the desire.

Clearly duplication of non-frontline staff is seen as a cost that can be saved in GBR.

She probably isn’t old enough to remember how BR wasn’t exactly the perfect world they’re now anticipating…

 

[12LDA28C]

Wonder why rewiring is being used as a phrase, is that electrification, or Government speak for reorganisation without actually changing what passengers see and encounter every day

Presumably this relates at least in part to the already-announced plan to re-wire the northern end of the WCML to increase the robustness and resilience of the OHLE?

Because it sounds punchy and dynamic, without actually having a clear meaning? Please prove me wrong.

See above.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This is the nearest we get to an organisational structure for GBR (1.7):

GBR will operate passenger services under public ownership and will be responsible for all services that are currently franchised by the Secretary of State or provided by the DfT Operator. It will be responsible for all rail infrastructure that is currently managed and owned by Network Rail and will own and manage the majority of stations. This includes those currently managed by Network Rail and by franchisees or the DfT Operator. It will also be responsible for delivering enhancements, as Network Rail does today. Crucially, GBR will unite track and train at a route level, with integrated management and joined up decision-making to support improved reliability, passenger and freight growth, and cost savings. This will also make it more responsive to the needs of local areas. GBR will differ significantly in this regard from models of the past such as the Strategic Rail Authority and will be set up to ensure the railway delivers for local users and communities, rather than focusing solely on the national level.

As expected, GBR will use the framework of Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd as its legal core (for letting contracts and managing the supply chain).
GBR will also use the NR Control Period mechanism for 5-year settlements, this time covering train services as well as infrastructure.
This means the full GBR model will apply from April 2029, with muddling through till then on current CP7 budgets and parallel TOC agreements.
GBR will have a full online retail web site, but in competition with 3rd party providers.
No separate GBR TOC web sites (but Scotrail, TfW, Merseyrail web sites will probably stay).

The interface with Scotland and Wales looks like reflecting the current devolved procedures.
Notably Wales is to be "consulted" about GBR matters, while Scotland is fully responsible for funding its railway.
Nothing said about cross-border services, I note (might be jointly owned in future).
Mayors get a stronger voice on local services but not necessarily the control and funds they seek.
The SoS will have the last word on fares.
National discounts (ie railcards) will continue.
No mention of HS2 anywhere (HS1 is not owned by NR/GBR).

There are only 20 questions asked.
I think DfT wants to limit debate and options.
I get the impression legislation is still a way off, and some of it looks complex (eg the driver licensing issues, consequent on the way Brexit legislation was handled).

 

[Horizon22]

I think she suggested that trains should run on time in the first place, but clearly that has always been the desire.

Well duh! But given that this is public transport and things happen, root cause analysis as well as performance analysis is massively helped by recording all actions. Sometimes you can learn things about the timetable or disruption which means you can do things differently and planning / control / infrastructure teams can learn from them. It’s not all about the blame game. The financial element of delay attribution is a different matter but you’d still get internal departments fighting over things instead!

I don't see it as a contradiction, as long as they collaborate. A service which doesn't suit the cities or regions it connects isn't going fit the criteria GBR are meant to be aiming for.

Yes ideally if the balance is right but that collaboration has the potential to be a big ‘if’.

 

[Ghostbus]

ending major failures and disruptions like the 2018 timetabling crisis.

Really? It seems to me the separation of trains and track played a minor part in that debacle, described at the time as a system wide problem.

The DfT failed to adequately support the railway in matters it clearly didn't understand. Publicly owned Network Rail failed to deliver on matters entirely within its own competency. Private infrastructure contracting failed to deliver for the public railway. The unions did what the unions do. The regulator criticised everybody, including itself.

I can't see how a slightly smoother program of works to complement a slightly smoother upgrade of stock fixes any of these major structural flaws. Taking some of that communication and accountability behind the closed doors of one entity that will most definitely be too big to fail, might make it even more likely to happen.

It will hold operators to account on behalf of passengers and arbitrate where passengers are not satisfied about the handling of a complaint. Working with the Transport Secretary and GBR, it will also be given the powers to set clear standards for passengers on things like journey information and assistance, investigate persistent problems and publish reports on poor service. Where poor passenger experiences are identified, it will be able to refer this to the railway regulator for enforcement action.

This all sounds very confused. Why can't a publicly owned railway overseen by a government department be trusted to write and enforce standards regarding passenger assistance? Watchdogs and regulators haven't exactly improved other public services since this kind of thing became normalised.

unified, simplified railway

Can't they just stop this endless New Labour style spin? If you take ATOC as one single entity, this new railway is seemingly just as fragmented, bureaucratic and lacking in clear strategic leadership as the pre-Covid one.

 

[Towers]

Clearly duplication of non-frontline staff is seen as a cost that can be saved in GBR.

I rather think this will be key; by far the most obvious and immediate cost saving measure on the salaries side will be to strip out the layers of staff carrying out a wide range of back office and “other” jobs which are duplicated across the TOCs. Delay attribution is one example, but also things like the numerous inevitable “projects” teams are surely prime candidates for centralisation at GBR national, or at least regional, HQ. Labour appear not to have much appetite for going after frontline staff, and there is little meat to be cut from control centres and so on, so the savings will need to come from those in offices working sight unseen, which provide rich opportunity for redundancy, redeployment and moving jobs about, and all without the attention of the more vocal trade unions.

 

[richard_S]

Where are GBR going to be located. No doubt in an expensive suite of offices in a large city center.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Where are GBR going to be located. No doubt in an expensive suite of offices in a large city center.

Derby is the declared HQ site.
But without knowing how GBR will be structured regionally it's hard to know how it will turn out.

 

[richard_S]

Derby is the declared HQ site.
But without knowing how GBR will be structured regionally it's hard to know how it will turn out.

I guess time will tell.

 

[Verulamius]

There will be a number of non GBR train operators over Network Rail tracks.

TfL for their overground and Elizabeth line services and certain underground lines.
Wales
Liverpool
Tyne and Wear
Scotland
Sheffield trams
Future mayoral services?

Plus private open access, freight (one freight group is owned by government I believe)

Track access pricing should be non discriminatory.

 

[richard_S]

There will be a number of non GBR train operators over Network Rail tracks.

TfL for their overground and Elizabeth line services and certain underground lines.
Wales
Liverpool
Tyne and Wear
Scotland
Sheffield trams
Future mayoral services?

Plus private open access, freight (one freight group is owned by government I believe)

Track access pricing should be non discriminatory.

The government do not own any rail freight companies.

 

[43066]

It’s not all about the blame game. The financial element of delay attribution is a different matter but you’d still get internal departments fighting over things instead!

I don’t really understand why delay attribution is seen as such a “hot button” issue. Virtually nobody is employed only to deal with that one matter, and it will remain important to investigate why delays have occurred and work out ways to mitigate them in the future. Eg noticing that trains are regularly delayed at certain locations, so that timetables can be better optimised in future.

 

[Richardr]

This is the nearest we get to an organisational structure for GBR (1.7):

GBR will operate passenger services under public ownership and will be responsible for all services that are currently franchised by the Secretary of State or provided by the DfT Operator. It will be responsible for all rail infrastructure that is currently managed and owned by Network Rail and will own and manage the majority of stations. This includes those currently managed by Network Rail and by franchisees or the DfT Operator. It will also be responsible for delivering enhancements, as Network Rail does today. Crucially, GBR will unite track and train at a route level, with integrated management and joined up decision-making to support improved reliability, passenger and freight growth, and cost savings. This will also make it more responsive to the needs of local areas. GBR will differ significantly in this regard from models of the past such as the Strategic Rail Authority and will be set up to ensure the railway delivers for local users and communities, rather than focusing solely on the national level.

What on earth does that final sentence quoted from the document mean? The national level is made up of the sum of all of the local users and communities.

 

[43066]

Where are GBR going to be located. No doubt in an expensive suite of offices in a large city center.

In a city centre, yes. Where would you expect the head office of any major multi billion pound organisation to be located?

(Admittedly, probably not in Derby!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. With GBR bringing network harmonisation potential, mayoral transport devolution undermines that.

Was it a problem when Regional Railways had PTE input? I don't recall it being.

 

[Peterthegreat]

The government do not own any rail freight companies.

Direct Rail Services (DRS) is government owned.

 

[Harpo]

Was it a problem when Regional Railways had PTE input? I don't recall it being.

It will depend on the extent of the powers given to Mayors, the status of their relationship with GBR and also possibly the future role of the regulator.

 

[DDB]

Odd, given how often that knowledgeable insiders have said there’ll still be delay attribution, as there was under BR. It needs to be collaborative rather than antagonistic, but it’ll still be there.

If you are only doing it to work out where lots of delays are coming from investigating a representative sample, investigating 10% or even 1% of delays would probably be enough.

 

[Spartacus]

Odd, given how often that knowledgeable insiders have said there’ll still be delay attribution, as there was under BR. It needs to be collaborative rather than antagonistic, but it’ll still be there.

It's all nonsense, talk about holding people to account and having a clear strategy while making the trains run no time, all the while saying the people who are able to show why the trains aren't running on time, who to hold to account and where the big issues are which could benefit from investment apparently aren't needed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

W

Direct Rail Services (DRS) is government owned.

But by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, not the DfT (so not part of GBR).

 

[6Gman]

No idea, but I would like to think most major industries or sectors know the shelf life of their assets.

But in the case of public ownership they won't necessarily know that a replacement will be forthcoming.

 

[Tw99]

It strikes me that "A Railway fit for Britain's Future" doesn't mean that it actually has to be any good