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

[Ghostbus]

Which suggests it was not written by an old school civil servant, but by someone newish who used AI to find buzzwords, rather than sticking to actual descriptive facts in the Headline

I took a lot of it as pure trolling. The rest as detail free word salad.

Smashing a broken rail? Rewiring a railway? Rooting out problems? Decades of failure? Highest ranking passenger concerns? Maze of tickets? Billions invested in long term projects? Single unified railway?

Reading that you would have absolutely no idea that substantial parts of the railway have been publicly owned for decades.

In particular the parts that are allegedly there to deal with broken rails, stolen/expired wiring, dug in militancy, complicated ticketing, long term investment strategy, passenger concerns, and most importantly of all, making sure the whole damn thing actually works as a single unified system (which it absolutely won't be under GBR, due to open access, devolution, freight and the private parts of the railway "industry", which is the sickest joke of all).

The singular mention of the 2018 timetable debacle, but not all the other stuff that's been going wrong for years, is unreal. The regulator blamed everyone, the entire system, including the government and itself. So we're hoping a repeat of such a thing isn't possible by simply unifying the track and most of the trains? That's the big idea is it?

As if GBR as a single entity won't have different departments with different priorities in addition to all its external relationships, and won't still be a pretty small fish in the global rolling stock manufacturing and civils sector. They'll love this new relationship, the private railway "industry" giants.

Steady orders and a sure fire knowledge they hold pretty much all the cards as the larger partner in any transaction GBR care to make. What is it to Siemens or (as was) Carillon to delay/amend GBR's 2027 orders? Are GBR going to be ruthless and just transfer the whole lot to someone else on the approved supplier list? Who? Someone with that much spare capacity just lying around doing nothing? Too small to be big, too big to be nimble.

Where is the leadership and strategy even coming from? Apparently GBR can't be trusted with even the basics like information and passenger assistance, needing both a regulator and a watchdog. What's the government's role to be? Same as before it seems. Directing everything and taking responsibility for nothing. The absent parent. What about the regulator? Unchanged I'm guessing. Because it's worked so well up to now.

We don't even have the unions in check yet, either carrotted or sticked into line. And they could care less, holding all the cards too. So much for unity. Unite the railway? Another troll. We already have the RMT and ASLEF. Add Unite to the mix and we all might as well give up and hand the country to Reform UK.

Smash it indeed. Your not my real railway dad!

 

[Magdalia]

there does not seem to be any discussion covering the role of the ROSCOs and the ‘cost’ of them in terms of the margin they take from the operational side of the industry.

There has been plenty of discussion on this forum. But it doesn't get discussed elsewhere because it is financially insane to swap cheap finance from the 2010s for expensive finance now.

Generally at any given point, public debt is cheaper than private debt - though a particularly good contract that locked in the low interest rates of the 2010s may be an exception.

You have hit the nail on the head!

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Presumably, 'going forward' - to use another horrible management speak term - GBR will purchase new stock directly and thus the role of the ROSCOs will wither away anyway.

 

[lordbusiness]

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

My thoughts entirely!

 

[Bald Rick]

My former BR colleagues used to get really upset about being forced to borrow from the Treasury. They don’t let you have mates rates and there is always a premium to pay on top of base rate.

Well quite. Those of us around in the late 80s / early 90s will remember the clamour to let BR borrow on the open market, rather than all projects requiring to have a minimum 7% (later 8%) IRR (internal rate of return). This was one of the drivers of privatisation and one of the reasons so many BR managers were keen on it, simply to enable the investment they knew was required.

 

[Warrior2852]

The thing that always seems to be quite vague in these documents is will GBR only have the one brand or will it be split up at all?
i.e. will it be a system where only ScotRail, TfW, TFL's routes, any open access, and Merseyrail are separate while everything else is just "GBR"? Or will regional identities still exist similar to franchise brands (but all government managed).

 

[WAB]

The thing that always seems to be quite vague in these documents is will GBR only have the one brand or will it be split up at all?
i.e. will it be a system where only ScotRail, TfW, TFL's routes, any open access, and Merseyrail are separate while everything else is just "GBR"? Or will regional identities still exist similar to franchise brands (but all government managed).

If they have any commercial sense, they will. GBR is a very bland brand.

I also wonder how they will maintain accountability and care for the service when staff don't identify with their part of the network and no single section of the organisation will be responsible for many services. Perhaps some form of business/commercial overlay who 'own' the service groups, supported by route-based production units (for stock, engineering, signalling, stations, traincrew etc.)?

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

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

Those shelf life times may not necessarily match what their customers think, though.

Pat

Passengers this, passengers that, ad nauseam. What about freight?
Pat

I suspect politicians will only worry about that when 40 foot containers get the vote!

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 think there's anything wrong with letting mayors and elected officials lobby for things - who knows,one of them might even have a bright idea or two! It might be a way for some accountability to the public to be introduced into the system

That is a drop in the ocean in cost savings.

Doesn't mean it's not worth saving it though. If we write off every saving as a drop in the ocean, we'll never save anything!

 

[Scanderina]

Presumably, 'going forward' - to use another horrible management speak term - GBR will purchase new stock directly and thus the role of the ROSCOs will wither away anyway.

Using what source of finance?

 

[WibbleWobble]

If they have any commercial sense, they will. GBR is a very bland brand.

It doesn't help that "Great British Railways" sounds like one of U&Yesterday's Michael Portillo documentary series!

 

[weeklycommuter]

I assume the following is the section of most interest to freight and open access passenger train operators. Not sure how it would work in practice.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67b30e36b56d8b0856c2fd49/a-railway-fit-for-britains-future.pdf

A reformed role for the ORR in access and charging decisions
3.36 For GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions on the best use of its network, the ORR’s current role must change. Under the new model, we propose that the ORR continues to ensure fair access to the GBR managed network through a robust and independent appeals function, set out in legislation.
3.37 The ORR appeals process would:
• Apply to decisions GBR takes in discharging its functions to plan and manage use of the railway, including through its new GBR Code, setting or amending standard access contract terms and charging decisions.
• Be available to any railway undertaking or other body that considers itself disadvantaged or discriminated against.
• Evaluate whether GBR has acted rationally and fairly, in line with its legal duties (including obligations to be non-discriminatory), complying with the established GBR AUP and meeting contractual obligations.
3.38 The ORR would be able to recommend and in certain circumstances direct remedies where it finds that GBR’s decision-making has been discriminatory and has not followed its own processes. The ORR would need to consult on draft decisions and remedies and we anticipate that for the majority of successful appeal cases, GBR would be required to reconsider a decision in the light of specific ORR findings.
3.39 However, in exceptional circumstances, for example were GBR to take a decision that was wholly inconsistent with its duties and policies, where the available evidence did not support GBR’s decision and/or were GBR to purposefully discriminate against an operator seeking access to the GBR-managed network, the ORR may direct GBR to change a decision provided that in doing so it does not overturn previously established and/or contracted access allocations.

 

[styles]

Presumably, 'going forward' - to use another horrible management speak term - GBR will purchase new stock directly and thus the role of the ROSCOs will wither away anyway.

Will they? For a long time now the talk of nationalisation of the railways has focussed so heavily on the TOCs that it's actually become quite irritating having ROSCOs basically out of the debate.

There is then the issue of stock lifespan. Buying our own stock makes sense long-term, but unless they're going to compulsory purchase from the big 3 ROSCOs, it's going to be a long time before the stock in service is majority DfT-owned.

I would love for them to do it of course.

 

[Class 170101]

I'm in favour of mayoral offices being able to exert influence in order to meet the needs of the people and communities they represent. Clearly there will be tensions between, shall we say, the political and operational interests but both need to form part of the decision-making process.

Be careful with mayors because they will only care about services within their boundaries but that could be at the expense of services that run into a mayoral area from outside of it.

Some would say its a 'no taxation without representation' potential problem.

eg those outside of London would be unhappy if the London Mayor was allowed to use all the capacity for London services at the expense of those outside of London.

 

[thomalex]

If they have any commercial sense, they will. GBR is a very bland brand.

I also wonder how they will maintain accountability and care for the service when staff don't identify with their part of the network and no single section of the organisation will be responsible for many services. Perhaps some form of business/commercial overlay who 'own' the service groups, supported by route-based production units (for stock, engineering, signalling, stations, traincrew etc.)?

In what way exactly. All we know are the initials, and it will be issuing the double arrow, but how it will all be presented we don’t currently know.

I don’t see how just looking at the initials it differs much from what you have abroad such as SNCF, DB, SBB which GBR seems to be wanting to replicate. Specifically having a single network with consistent branding for stations and trains rather than lots of separate operators.

 

[Scanderina]

The thing that always seems to be quite vague in these documents is will GBR only have the one brand or will it be split up at all?
i.e. will it be a system where only ScotRail, TfW, TFL's routes, any open access, and Merseyrail are separate while everything else is just "GBR"? Or will regional identities still exist similar to franchise brands (but all government managed).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are sub-brands, e.g. "The Bee Network, powered by GBR"

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In what way exactly. All we know are the initials, and it will be issuing the double arrow, but how it will all be presented we don’t currently know.
I don’t see how just looking at the initials it differs much from what you have abroad such as SNCF, DB, SBB which GBR seems to be wanting to replicate. Specifically having a single network with consistent branding for stations and trains rather than lots of separate operators.

There are lots of "brands" in FR, DE, CH, even if they are mostly public sector operators.
They are not all part of SNCF/DB/SBB either, and sometimes the historic rail company is just the train operator with regional government doing the procurement/pricing.
GBR is more a reversion to a 1990s national (passenger) operator.
We also have no equivalent to FR/IT/ES high speed lines with multiple competing operators, although HS1 might go that way.

 

[MikeFromLFE]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are sub-brands, e.g. "The Bee Network, powered by GBR"

I can see "GBR - East Midlands" "GBR - Western" etc as the public face of the passenger services.

 

[JonathanH]

I can see "GBR - East Midlands" "GBR - Western" etc as the public face of the passenger services.

Why does there need to be regional demarcation for the public face? Operationally it might make sense to regionalise but it doesn't matter to tge user.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why does there need to be regional demarcation for the public face? Operationally it might make sense to regionalise but it doesn't matter to tge user.

Devolution means all sorts of regional identities sharing with the main GBR brand.
eg Scotrail, TfW, Merseyrail, TfL TOCs, GM Bee, WYorks, WMids etc etc, not to mention open access.

 

[WAB]

Why does there need to be regional demarcation for the public face? Operationally it might make sense to regionalise but it doesn't matter to tge user.

To divide the railway into easily understandable portions and allow for specific information on different areas to be easily accessible. Under BR, the regions featured prominently in public-facing documents.

 

[thomalex]

Devolution means all sorts of regional identities sharing with the main GBR brand.
eg Scotrail, TfW, Merseyrail, TfL TOCs, GM Bee, WYorks, WMids etc etc, not to mention open access.

Again we don’t know how the brand will be presented but if if they’re going for consistency I would expect it will essentially replace where you see the double arrow and ‘National Rail’ now. Certainly a few quirks with the nations (Scotrail etc) but the distinction between GBR and regional metros with their own brands should be fairly easy to understand.

 

[misar]

Reading through the comments on the consultation document, it seems many view the proposals put forward as unworkable good intentions at best. Would be interested in responses to this mini-survey:
1. Was the original BR privatisation a good model which should be restored to its former glory?
2. Is the present railway situation fine and should be left alone?
3. If neither of the above what changes would you implement, keeping in mind the current extreme financial constraints?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are sub-brands, e.g. "The Bee Network, powered by GBR"

That happened in 90s BR as well.

 

[70014IronDuke]

“the plans will smash a broken rail system”.

If the rail system is already broken, why does it now need to be smashed ?

Where is that 'like' button?

 

[Ghostbus]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are sub-brands, e.g. "The Bee Network, powered by GBR"

More like "Bee Rail, a part of the Bee Network*"

* - see small print for details of the responsibilities and obligations of Transport for Greater Manchester, Great British Railways and the railway watchdog with regards to journeys made on a Bee Rail service

 

[Iskra]

More like "Bee Rail, a part of the Bee Network*"

* - see small print for details of the responsibilities and obligations of Transport for Greater Manchester, Great British Railways and the railway watchdog with regards to journeys made on a Bee Rail service

GBeeR

Seriously though, I'm interested whether the reintegration of track and train and thus the abolition of access charges has a negative impact on funding. It's going to highlight the real financial situation on the railway. I also wonder if GBR with a 'lighter touch' from the DFT is going to be more directly influenced by the treasury instead.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

This is all marketing speak, the real dependency for the success of GBR is
1. How much money is available - not any extra than today (before anyone says holding companies taking out revenue today, I don't think in the grand scheme of things that little extra will be available for investment and most likely taken up in public industry red tape)

2 how much the DFT / Treasury try to interfere, purchasing new trains for example should come out of GBRs budget and Not require sign off from the treasury/ DFT but if anyone sees that a likely scenario, I'm sceptical.