Great British Railways: Consultation on Legislation to Implement Rail Transformation

[InTheEastMids]

I didn't see an existing thread on this.
DfT have opened a consultation on the legislative changes required to bring GBR to life.
The closing date for responses is 4th August.

The link the consultation page is here, with links to PDFs, and instructions on how to obtain accessible versions:

Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail: legislative changes to implement rail reform

Seeks views on primary legislative changes required to effect rail reform as set out in the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail.

www.gov.uk

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I got that link in my mail this morning. Thanks for starting a thread on it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Only got as far as p29, but this is key:

We propose amending Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, which prohibits the appointment of a public sector operator for services let by Great British Railways (and those let by Welsh Ministers), to allow for direct award to a public sector operator in specific circumstances. It is proposed that these will be where an existing contract ends mid-way through a major infrastructure project or delivery of a major industry reform programme and where the uncertainty associated with the delivery of those initiatives means that competition or a short-term direct award to a private operator is likely to deliver poor value for money for the taxpayer – and this will be included in primary legislation. Additional detail on the criteria and the circumstances in which they may be utilised will be added in the franchising policy statement published by the Secretary of State following a consultation process. The prohibition on public sector bidders in England and Wales for operators appointed via competition will remain.

So permanent public-sector operators (TOCs) will still not be allowed in England and Wales; the current OLR-type operations will be allowed temporarily in certain circumstances, as now.
Scotland has powers to let a public sector contract.

Elsewhere, it says devolved administrations (ie Scotland and Wales) will be able to subcontract delivery to GBR if they choose.
GBR will be firmly a DfT body, and will use NRIL (Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd) as the legal basis for its structure, retaining large numbers of NR staff and commercial contracts.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Put the customers (the passengers) first, not shareholders and not the DfT. That would be a good piece of legislation to start.

Counsult staff who actually do tte job on how a railway should be run and ditch the unnecessary management layers

Allow staff to make use of any parking location that enables them to commute to work. Train companies shoukd work together to allow staff to take advantage of green credentials

Delay attribution should be used as a prevention, not a penalty charging tool. Regulation should employ common sense.

Ditch "TOC Only" tickets and short hop advance tickets which only serve to abuse the ticketing system and rips passengers off. APOD should have a minimum didtance limitation. This would also eliminate many split ticket anomalies which push overcrowding onto certain seervices while others cart fresh air around and reintroduce any reasonable route as per the routing guides

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ditch "TOC Only" tickets and short hop advance tickets which only serve to abuse the ticketing system and rips passengers off. APOD should have a minimum didtance limitation. This would also eliminate many split ticket anomalies which push overcrowding onto certain seervices while others cart fresh air around and reintroduce any reasonable route as per the routing guides

What worked quite well before was that Advances would only be available on trains where you can reserve a seat. That would pretty universally only be long distance trains.

Advances on e.g. Northern local services are nuts.

"Counted places" have been an utter disaster.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

None of the operational detail of the above 2 posts is addressed by the GBR consultation.
It doesn't clarify the GBR regional structure or responsibilities, it's mostly about amending existing (ex-EU) legislation to suit GBR (eg letting contracts).
It's clear ORR will have an expanded role in the new structure.
Private sector innovation in retailing is acknowledged, with a continuing role promised in the GBR setup.
GBR being "responsible for" the retail offer isn't the same as actually delivering it.
It says GBR will not be an enlarged NR, but then says it will be based on NRIL.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Just my thoughts......

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

These consultations are just a front to make it look as though the govt is listening and giving people a voice. If they wait till its closed to review the feedback not much chance of legislation being introduced this side of 2023.

Anyhow my skim through I see that

NR as an entity will be retained to avoid any staff transfer issues.

PR23 (CP7) to continue, SoS will continue to issue HLOS.

ORR, RAIB, RSSB to be kept as they are. Significantly surprising that it reads as though ORR just carrying on with its non safety oversight as though nothing has changed. Can't see why we need ORR man marking GBR and create a whole industry within GBR to service their needs. RSSB should also be transferred into GBR.

Anyhow I suppose things are slowly moving forward.

 

[Gems]

Do you really expect great change? "TOC's are dead, long live the TOC". That is all you need to know. It will be tarted up to look like a public owned entity run by private companies who will be paid a fee, but not allowed to become a brand. And you know what, the only way they will be able to sell this pup and get TOC's interested is to strip away at workers rights, wages, maintenance budgets, and eventually the pensions so these people can still turn a profit with reduced passenger numbers. BR Day's here we come.

 

[eldomtom2]

ORR, RAIB, RSSB to be kept as they are. Significantly surprising that it reads as though ORR just carrying on with its non safety oversight as though nothing has changed. Can't see why we need ORR man marking GBR and create a whole industry within GBR to service their needs. RSSB should also be transferred into GBR.

ORR is presumably still necessary to deal with freight and open access operators. Transferring the RSSB's duties to GBR would also seem to create a conflict of interest.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

ORR is presumably still necessary to deal with freight and open access operators. Transferring the RSSB's duties to GBR would also seem to create a conflict of interest.

RSSB produce standards then NR create there own detailed versions of them. They were also there to deal with TSI's and other EU driven requirements no longer required along with overseeing innovation and research which NR half duplicate. BR just produced one standard.

So can't see the conflict on RSSB but get your point about someone having the open access operators interest at heart but thats a small part of ORR's non economic oversight arm.

 

[eldomtom2]

RSSB produce standards then NR create there own detailed versions of them.

Yes, that's normally how companies are supposed to respond to health and safety regulations.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, that's normally how companies are supposed to respond to health and safety regulations.

RSSB don't produce H&S regulations only industry specific ones. RSSB isn't replicated in the energy, water and telecom industries.

 

[JonathanH]

"Counted places" have been an utter disaster.

Who for? Are you suggesting that Chiltern, LNR, SWR etc should only be allowed to offer advance fares on their longer distance services if they offer formal seat reservations?

I have a little bit of sympathy on your point about short distance advances but they do serve to reduce the cost of travel in many cases. However, they have no place in a future PAYG-based fare structure for local travel.

I also have a lot of sympathy for revenue inspectors who have a much more complex job with fares that have restrictions than if only one fare existed for any given journey which is where the removal of TOC only fares (including those offered by LNR that you accept as market segmentation but potentially cause just as much aggravation when abused) is the way forward.

 

[matt_world2004]

The requirement prohibiting public sector operators bidding for contracts should be removed. Particularly for devolved railways

 

[tomuk]

The requirement prohibiting public sector operators bidding for contracts should be removed. Particularly for devolved railways

Any reason why?

 

[matt_world2004]

Any reason why?

It would allow the most efficient operator to bid out of the private sector or public sector. If a public sector operator can deliver the contract at a lower cost than the private sector why shouldnt it bid

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It would allow the most efficient operator to bid out of the private sector or public sector. If a public sector operator can deliver the contract at a lower cost than the private sector why shouldnt it bid

Which public sector operator did you have in mind?
There aren't any as far as I can see (DRS is an exception, but only for freight).
The OLR operations are intended to be transitory, and will be competitively bid in due course.
In any case they are run for the DfT by private sector consultants.

As I understand it, Scotland can have a public sector operator for Scotrail (not sure if it has to be rebid in the future).
In the proposals, I think Wales will have to rebid Wales & Borders (currently TfW Rail Services operating as an OLR TOC) in due course.

 

[matt_world2004]

Which public sector operator did you have in mind?
There aren't any as far as I can see (DRS is an exception, but only for freight).
The OLR operations are intended to be transitory, and will be competitively bid in due course.
In any case they are run for the DfT by private sector consultants.

As I understand it, Scotland can have a public sector operator for Scotrail (not sure if it has to be rebid in the future).
In the proposals, I think Wales will have to rebid Wales & Borders (currently TfW Rail Services operating as an OLR TOC) in due course.

There is TfL , There is reading buses if they could bid to run a franchise contract for less than an private operator and still return profit from running it to their respective operations why shouldn't they . By excluding public sector operations from the bidding process they are artificially limiting competition.

Many of the TOCs here like arriva and abellio are owned by public sector holding companies overseas

 

[Goldfish62]

There is TfL , There is reading buses if they could bid to run a franchise contract for less than an private operator and still return profit from running it to their respective operations why shouldn't they . By excluding public sector operations from the bidding process they are artificially limiting competition.

Many of the TOCs here like arriva and abellio are owned by public sector holding companies overseas

The consultation highlights the success of the German concession system, yet there publicly owned companies including DB and regionally owned companies are allowed to bid.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Put the customers (the passengers) first, not shareholders and not the DfT. That would be a good piece of legislation to start.

Counsult staff who actually do tte job on how a railway should be run and ditch the unnecessary management layers

Allow staff to make use of any parking location that enables them to commute to work. Train companies shoukd work together to allow staff to take advantage of green credentials

Delay attribution should be used as a prevention, not a penalty charging tool. Regulation should employ common sense.

Ditch "TOC Only" tickets and short hop advance tickets which only serve to abuse the ticketing system and rips passengers off. APOD should have a minimum didtance limitation. This would also eliminate many split ticket anomalies which push overcrowding onto certain seervices while others cart fresh air around and reintroduce any reasonable route as per the routing guides

This is consultation on Primary legislation for an Act Of Parliament. The suggestions above are not relevant specific points of law. For example, 'putting customers first' is a good intention but a bad piece of legislation because it doesn't actually make clear what that means.

 

[XAM2175]

This is consultation on Primary legislation for an Act Of Parliament. The suggestions above are not relevant specific points of law. For example, 'putting customers first' is a good intention but a bad piece of legislation because it doesn't actually make clear what that means.

"The law says we have to put passengers first, so we always make sure they're on the train before we let the driver and other crew on."

 

[Surreytraveller]

This is consultation on Primary legislation for an Act Of Parliament. The suggestions above are not relevant specific points of law. For example, 'putting customers first' is a good intention but a bad piece of legislation because it doesn't actually make clear what that means.

Exactly. It should mean things like the last train on each route must run. So drivers' T&Cs would need to reflect that, rather than saying its 5 minutes late, I'm not working it.

 

[Cardiff123]

The massive caveat to this consultation is that there's a strong possibility that there will be a new Prime Minister and/or government (whether it's Conservative or Labour) before the legislation for GBR is written and laid before Parliament. So as with everything in Westminster politics this year, the final outcome of what the specifics of GBR will be is very fluid. And the final implementation of GBR could well be delayed even further.

 

[jayah]

Put the customers (the passengers) first, not shareholders and not the DfT. That would be a good piece of legislation to start.

Counsult staff who actually do tte job on how a
Ditch "TOC Only" tickets and short hop advance tickets which only serve to abuse the ticketing system and rips passengers off. APOD should have a minimum didtance limitation. This would also eliminate many split ticket anomalies which push overcrowding onto certain seervices while others cart fresh air around and reintroduce any reasonable route as per the routing guides

This sounds very confused. Cheap tickets rip off customers and cause overcrowding?

Advance tickets should be enabling better demand management, which is important as the supply management leaves much to be desired.

 

[baz962]

Exactly. It should mean things like the last train on each route must run. So drivers' T&Cs would need to reflect that, rather than saying its 5 minutes late, I'm not working it.

I don't know a single driver that wouldn't drive a train that's five minutes late. If it's the out run , you would normally be back to time by the time you get to the other end, even if you have a shorter turnaround. And if it's the return trip, it's the one that takes the driver back home too. Absolutely nonsense post.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The massive caveat to this consultation is that there's a strong possibility that there will be a new Prime Minister and/or government (whether it's Conservative or Labour) before the legislation for GBR is written and laid before Parliament. So as with everything in Westminster politics this year, the final outcome of what the specifics of GBR will be is very fluid. And the final implementation of GBR could well be delayed even further.

It does depend on the parliamentary process, but if it reaches the statute book Labour will say they will repeal it, but then find reasons not to ("rail is not a priority").
There will be a lot of things ahead of rail in the queue.
Labour will just have to "make it work" as they did after 1997.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s a very clever piece of legislation, which appears to give the DfT the overall power to tell GBR which services go out to contract as well as giving the power to GBR to run services directly, in certain circumstances.

In other words, Shapps has been well and truly done by his civil servants because it gives them a lot of power to vary things. it could mean either more directly operated services, or contracted out services, or more OA, (or any combination of the three) depending on which Government is in power and what they want to do.

All that is banned is a public sector railway bidding for a concession. If there is no competition, they could still carry on running it!

If I was Labour I would be quietly welcoming this legislation as, if I wanted to run the whole thing through GBR, the hard legislative work to achieve this will have already been done by the Conservatives!

This Government really are a bunch of political muppets.

 

[Goldfish62]

It’s a very clever piece of legislation, which appears to give the DfT the overall power to tell GBR which services go out to contract as well as giving the power to GBR to run services directly, in certain circumstances.

In other words, Shapps has been well and truly done by his civil servants because it gives them a lot of power to vary things. it could mean either more directly operated services, or contracted out services, or more OA, (or any combination of the three) depending on which Government is in power and what they want to do.

All that is banned is a public sector railway bidding for a concession. If there is no competition, they could still carry on running it!

If I was Labour I would be quietly welcoming this legislation as, if I wanted to run the whole thing through GBR, the hard legislative work to achieve this will have already been done by the Conservatives!

This Government really are a bunch of political muppets.

Reading the trade press the greatest fear all along has been that GBR would never be allowed the same autonomy that BR had to run the railway, but essentially civil servants would remain in charge as they are now. It seems that fear is to be realised, unsurprisingly.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Exactly. It should mean things like the last train on each route must run. So drivers' T&Cs would need to reflect that, rather than saying its 5 minutes late, I'm not working it.

What planet do you actually live on?