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

[Horizon22]

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.

I think it's just being used as superficial way of saying "look at these people arguing about who owes who this isn't passenger friendly" which resonates with the public when in reality those in the know are aware it isn't just this and has an important role but is being used as an example of the sort of attitude/practices/behaviour Labour want GBR to reform even if in reality, a lot of DA work will be ongoing.

 

[6Gman]

The proof, as always, is going to be in the pudding.

No, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Producing a good-looking cake counts for nothing if the eating reveals its taste to be unpleasant.

Similarly, the proof of achieving a better railway lies in effective change not fancy branding or buzzwords in press releases.

 

[richard_S]

There must be a lot of disused properties that could be re tasked for GBR to use. Network rail used to advertise them. This would save them a lot in rental costs.

 

[nr758123]

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'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.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is it me or does GBR seem to be launched every other week?!

No, it can't be just you. I certainly feel that way. Crazy Britain.

 

[Peterthegreat]

W

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

Indeed. However it is government owned.

 

[Dr Hoo]

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

‘Problem’ isn’t perhaps the best word but it wasn’t always straightforward. Despite PTE requirements being treated as a ‘marginal’ addition to the BR ‘core’ this was hardly the case in Scotland where the majority of journeys and trains run came under the Strathclyde PTE.
Issues such as withdrawal of support for the Paisley Canal/Kilmacolm service or a ‘reluctance’ to pay for an un-rationalised renewal at Newton led to some ‘unfortunate’ outcomes, for example.

 

[The Planner]

There must be a lot of disused properties that could be re tasked for GBR to use. Network rail used to advertise them. This would save them a lot in rental costs.

That is a drop in the ocean in cost savings.

 

[Spartacus]

I think it's just being used as superficial way of saying "look at these people arguing about who owes who this isn't passenger friendly" which resonates with the public when in reality those in the know are aware it isn't just this and has an important role but is being used as an example of the sort of attitude/practices/behaviour Labour want GBR to reform even if in reality, a lot of DA work will be ongoing.

I can't say I trust a minister who knows little about their job not to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Delay Attribution has long been a totemic issue for those who want to make 'the case for change'. This goes right back to the late Sir Alastair Morton and the advent of the Strategic Rail Authority 25 years ago which, apparently, we now understand was 'a model of the past' He introduced the image of, I think it was said to be, many hundreds of staff sitting round all day arguing the toss about 'who caused what' rather than blowing whistles to get trains away from platforms.

Recall the former special adviser to the last government who supposedly personally amended the draft Williams-Shapps report to bring out that the size of the bird that a train had hit was the determinant of consequential delay under the Delay Attribution Rules to bring out their idiosyncracies.

Presumably, in pratice, any sensible management would keep much of the Delay Attribution machinery, but not tie money to it, to find the best way to improve performance. Some non-GBR operators (Freight?) may well seek its retention, in monetary form, for their trains?

Meantime, the need to stay on top of delay causation is as strong as ever!

 

[Snow1964]

I have now found the paper version of the consultation questions which is an alternative to the online version.

It appears to be one of the we intend to do X format type consultations, but you can give your view if you want (which no doubt will be ignored) to avoid later challenges regarding lack of consultation.

To me it appears to be awash with theoretical ideals (and no idea how it will action happen). Eg this statement in Question 24

This means GBR will be able to make best use of the network and provide a seamless service for passengers and freight users

which suggests using the current network (with its historical rationalisations) is planned way forward, no indication of improvements or untangling bottlenecks or locally lengthening trains where services are constrained and bursting. But somehow service will be seamless.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67af44866e6c8d18118ace0c/a-railway-fit-for-britains-future.doc

 

[Bald Rick]

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

Oh, she knows. Her predecessor was younger though…

Presumably, in pratice, any sensible management would keep much of the Delay Attribution machinery, but not tie money to it, to find the best way to improve performance. Some non-GBR operators (Freight?) may well seek its retention, in monetary form, for their trains?

Correct. There’s effectively 4 elements of delay attribution, 3 of which will still be needed in my opinion:

Delay attributors - all employed by NR, on shifts, usually in controls or signalboxes. By far the largest group (a couple of hundred nationwide). They are watching the service, identifying trains that are late, and the reasons for that, mostly in real time. Occasionally on ‘replay’ when there’s a while load of shizzle going on concurrently, or when there is a staff shortage. Obviously, all of these people will still be needed.

“Level 2” - employed by NR and TOCs / FOCs. Check the work of the Delay attributors. For TOCs / FOCs they check more or less everything attributed to them. The NR Level 2s do sample checks of all the attribution, and also repsond to disputes raised by TOCs and FOCs, and agree what the right answer is the vast majority of the time. This will still be needed, perhaps with a little less in the way of discussion with TOCs and FOCs, because there won’t be very many of them left; but there will still need to be checks and agreement for attribution of certain types of incident, especially where the cause is unclear and/or the effect goes across geographical boundaries. These people are especially useful, as they are great at ferreting out what really happened, but probably spend a bit too much time agreeing that with opposite numbers. Having more capacity there is key to improving performance overall. Also within this group are the specialists who own the local systems and make checks to provide assurance they are working correctly.

Above that are people who get involved, but only as part of their job; usually they manage the track access contracts, and have to calculate the payments due under the performance regime. That is where the ‘argument’ and negotiation is. Educated guess it is about 20% of the work of about 50 people in the industry.

The there’s the central team who own the systems and the ”Delay Attribution Principles and Rules” (available in all good bookshops, well, the NR website) on behalf of the whole industry. This team audits use of the processes and checks that the local teams are using systems and processes correctly. It also formally progresses changes to the sytems and processes. This is about 6 people, and clearly still required.

In short, almost all of them will still be needed, arguably more are needed to help improve performance in the new structure.

 

[Spartacus]

Recall the former special adviser to the last government who supposedly personally amended the draft Williams-Shapps report to bring out that the size of the bird that a train had hit was the determinant of consequential delay under the Delay Attribution Rules to bring out their idiosyncracies.

Ironically the size (or more accurately weight) of the bird hasn't been relevant for a few years now, but was previously used to determine if it was attributed to the operator or Network Rail, it presumably being determined at one point or another that it was reasonable that a train windscreen etc should be able to withstand a strike of a light bird, but not necessarily a heavy one. The bird used as the 'cut off point' was the pheasant, possibly because of the male's bright plumage makes it easily identifiable, but you look at the huge difference in weight between the male and the female... not a good choice! Now trains are expected to withstand any bird strike and resultant delays go to the operator.

Delay attributors - all employed by NR, on shifts, usually in controls or signalboxes. By far the largest group (a couple of hundred nationwide). They are watching the service, identifying trains that are late, and the reasons for that, mostly in real time. Occasionally on ‘replay’ when there’s a while load of shizzle going on concurrently, or when there is a staff shortage. Obviously, all of these people will still be needed.

Level 1 looking at delays 'live' in real time just isn't practical most of the time. There's just far too much running over too wide an area to have a chance, even when it's not busy. As a rule it's always reacting, apart from perhaps when things have gone badly wrong and everything's stood. I did once know someone in level 1 who'd try watching delays in real time, but he was forever ringing boxes for "delays" that never actually happened and didn't exactly endear himself as a result.

 

[Starmill]

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?

It reads to me as if it's being used as a metaphor, and there's actually no physical wire of any kind involved.

Wiktionary offers this by way of explanation:

1. To change the functionality of something by altering the parameters or logic.
   When our companies merged, I rewired our payment processing system to handle their invoices as well.

rewire - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

wiktionary.org

 

[Horizon22]

Delay attributors - all employed by NR, on shifts, usually in controls or signalboxes. By far the largest group (a couple of hundred nationwide). They are watching the service, identifying trains that are late, and the reasons for that, mostly in real time. Occasionally on ‘replay’ when there’s a while load of shizzle going on concurrently, or when there is a staff shortage. Obviously, all of these people will still be needed.

And most Level 1 attributors are reliant on getting info from people doing other jobs like controlling the train service, or signalling trains as you say of course!

Level 1 looking at delays 'live' in real time just isn't practical most of the time. There's just far too much running over too wide an area to have a chance, even when it's not busy. As a rule it's always reacting, apart from perhaps when things have gone badly wrong and everything's stood. I did once know someone in level 1 who'd try watching delays in real time, but he was forever ringing boxes for "delays" that never actually happened and didn't exactly endear himself as a result.

No it isn't, but within reason it is normally easy enough to find out by phoning the right person or a quick replay. Sometimes trying to check the "1 minute lost between X-Y" is hopeless though and at the end of the day nobody from NR or TOC can realistically answer why and the subsequent small reactionary impacts. These normally get accepted as just "one of those things".

 

[Dr Hoo]

No it isn't, but within reason it is normally easy enough to find out by phoning the right person or a quick replay. Sometimes trying to check the "1 minute lost between X-Y" is hopeless though and at the end of the day nobody from NR or TOC can realistically answer why and the subsequent small reactionary impacts. These normally get accepted as just "one of those things".

I thought that only delays of three minutes or more were generally attributed to a specific incident. Less than that is ‘sub threshold’. (I recognise that for some ‘blanket’ reasons such as speed restrictions or adhesion practice will be different.)
Have things changed since I retired?

 

[physics34]

Is it me or does GBR seem to be launched every other week?!

Yes, enough of this press release malarkey.

Let's have some proper time lines and proper plans.

8 week public consultation is not needed. All they need to do is spend a couple of hours reading this forum to see the major issues.

 

[Spartacus]

I thought that only delays of three minutes or more were generally attributed to a specific incident. Less than that is ‘sub threshold’. (I recognise that for some ‘blanket’ reasons such as speed restrictions or adhesion practice will be different.)
Have things changed since I retired?

I think it depends on region. Mostly it's 3, though East Midlands in Derby used to be 2, but that's now 3 too.

 

[43066]

It reads to me as if it's being used as a metaphor, and there's actually no physical wire of any kind involved.

Wiktionary offers this by way of explanation:

rewire - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

wiktionary.org

That’s how it reads to me, also. Albeit a slightly odd and inappropriate choice of metaphor in this context, given the scope for confusion.

 

[The Planner]

I thought that only delays of three minutes or more were generally attributed to a specific incident. Less than that is ‘sub threshold’. (I recognise that for some ‘blanket’ reasons such as speed restrictions or adhesion practice will be different.)
Have things changed since I retired?

Sub threshold and ZZ delay did get a large focus, as repetitive 1 or 2 minute delays are also an issue.

 

[Bald Rick]

Level 1 looking at delays 'live' in real time just isn't practical most of the time. There's just far too much running over too wide an area to have a chance, even when it's not busy. As a rule it's always reacting, apart from perhaps when things have gone badly wrong and everything's stood. I did once know someone in level 1 who'd try watching delays in real time, but he was forever ringing boxes for "delays" that never actually happened and didn't exactly endear himself as a result.

Yes, I should have been clearer about my defintion of “live” - I meant within a few hours!

Sometimes trying to check the "1 minute lost between X-Y" is hopeless though and at the end of the day nobody from NR or TOC can realistically answer why and the subsequent small reactionary impacts. These normally get accepted as just "one of those things".

I thought that only delays of three minutes or more were generally attributed to a specific incident. Less than that is ‘sub threshold’. (I recognise that for some ‘blanket’ reasons such as speed restrictions or adhesion practice will be different.)
Have things changed since I retired?

Delays over 3 mins must be attributed, delays under that don’t have to be but can. But there is increasing focus on these minor delays, as it is responsible for around half all delay, and usually only 5 reasons for them, 3 of which are easily fixable. But that’s a subject for another thread.

 

[Harpo]

Sub threshold and ZZ delay did get a large focus, as repetitive 1 or 2 minute delays are also an issue.

Especially if a big incident can be swung onto the back of a train arriving into an area with a sub-threshold delay.

 

[Snow1964]

That’s how it reads to me, also. Albeit a slightly odd and inappropriate choice of metaphor in this context, given the scope for confusion.

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

 

[Horizon22]

I thought that only delays of three minutes or more were generally attributed to a specific incident. Less than that is ‘sub threshold’. (I recognise that for some ‘blanket’ reasons such as speed restrictions or adhesion practice will be different.)
Have things changed since I retired?

Yes and no - it might be that 3 minutes of overall delay have been caused but the root cause is just one train, especially on busy lines.

 

[Skymonster]

Nothing about ROSCOs, which seem to be one of the more profitable components of the railway “family”? I hoped that maybe GBR would get more involved in train ownership with the objective of keeping more of the money within the “system”.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Sure, but how would they fund that? GBR's capital spending will surely be heavily controlled, not least because HS2 is absorbing so much money....!

 

[Skymonster]

Sure, but how would they fund that? GBR's capital spending will surely be heavily controlled, not least because HS2 is absorbing so much money....!

I don’t know - I didn’t raise the point because I had a particular idea. I’m just surprised that with the government focus seemingly leaning more toward centralised control, 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.

 

[Harpo]

I’m just surprised that with the government focus seemingly leaning more toward centralised control, 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.

Politics. ROSCOs are a grand PPI. Try and do without and the debt would be on the public books.

 

[Yew]

Politics. ROSCOs are a grand PPI. Try and do without and the debt would be on the public books.

I think most folks have seen through that old accounting trick. 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.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Generally, it isn’t. It fluctuates and borrowing from the Treasury is sometimes far more expensive than going to the market, not just in times of low interest rates.

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.