Great British Railways: How do you think GBR will be run?

[Masboroughlad]

My apologies if these are answered elsewhere. I don't really 'get' how GBR will work!

May I ask a few, probably very basic, questions please?

1) It is said that train services will be run like London Bus concessions. How do they run? Will they be franchises in all but name? Or can operators bid for slots/ services?

2) Who will allocate stock to routes - will that be in Government hands or private operators will decide?

3) Will ROSCOs go? Will rolling stock be state owned?

4) What about services that go across regions (or whatever they will be called)?

5) Who will define catering provision on board? Will there be a minimum level or will it be totally up to each operator?

6) How will freight services work?

7) Will Open Access Operators still exist?

Think those were my initial key thoughts. I am sure it will all become clear!

Thanks in advance.

 

[Simon11]

My apologies if these are answered elsewhere. I don't really 'get' how GBR will work!

May I ask a few, probably very basic, questions please?

1) It is said that train services will be run like London Bus concessions. How do they run? Will they be franchises in all but name? Or can operators bid for slots/ services?

2) Who will allocate stock to routes - will that be in Government hands or private operators will decide?

3) Will ROSCOs go? Will rolling stock be state owned?

4) What about services that go across regions (or whatever they will be called)?

5) Who will define catering provision on board? Will there be a minimum level or will it be totally up to each operator?

6) How will freight services work?

7) Will Open Access Operators still exist?

Think those were my initial key thoughts. I am sure it will all become clear!

Thanks in advance.

1. They will be run like a concession operator like the overground. They will be given the timetable which they have to run.

2. Operators will select the rolling stock but GBR will heavily specify the requirements.

3. No change to ROSCOs

4. GBR will be structured into the NR 5 regions but there may be a few changes for some parts.

5. GBR will specify catering and likely that the operator will have incentisation to grow catering revenue.

6. Sorry, Not my area of knowledge but there will be a dedicated freight team in GBR

7. No change to OAs

 

[Masboroughlad]

What is a concession operator, please?

 

[SynthD]

The contract for a franchise gives a general idea of the service required and in return pays well when the service is popular. The contract for a concession gives an exact service that the government expect, in return for an exact set pay.

I hope the roscos go, as they are one major profit for the private sector.

No change for 4, 6 and 7. 5 will probably be as defined as the timetable.

 

[philosopher]

How will GBR trains be branded? Will they be branded primarily under GBR colours / logo with a small logo indicating the operator, like how London Buses are branded today, or will it be the other way round?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

How will GBR trains be branded? Will they be branded primarily under GBR colours / logo with a small logo indicating the operator, like how London Buses are branded today, or will it be the other way round?

There will be variations of the GBR brand to reflect the different regions

 

[swt_passenger]

I hope the roscos go, as they are one major profit for the private sector.

They don’t go, it was made clear in the original DfT announcement and the subsequent forum discussion.

 

[david1212]

...... The contract for a concession gives an exact service that the government expect, in return for an exact set pay.
....

Given the concession operator receives a fixed payment following on do all the fares collected go direct to the government plus the ORCATS distribution has ended ?

If so unless I am missing something there is no incentive for the operator to collect fares or promote rail travel. Rather they want the minimum number of passengers to run the shortest train thus minimising costs.

At least with franchising there was an incentive but also ' creative marketing ' e.g. operator specific advance fares available right up to departure time and only marginally less than the any operator walk-on fare but the operator retained all the fare rather than their share of the walk-on fare determined by ORCATS.

 

[Roast Veg]

If so unless I am missing something there is no incentive for the operator to collect fares or promote rail travel. Rather they want the minimum number of passengers to run the shortest train thus minimising costs.

Under a concession, any short forming is subject to a penalty.

 

[SynthD]

Correct. The incentive with concessions is to have no imagination, to only do what the contract says. As the Overground proves, that can include checking for fare evasion, extending trains, staffing stations.

 

[Roast Veg]

Correct. The incentive with concessions is to have no imagination, to only do what the contract says. As the Overground proves, that can include checking for fare evasion, extending trains, staffing stations.

Concessions may not specify methods in detail - rather they may set "targets" and leave the implementation down to the imagination of the TOC. As with some former franchises, sometimes a project such as rolling stock (class 700, 80x) will be led by the DfT, but not all.

 

[DarloRich]

surely the simple answer at this stage is that no one really knows the detail as of yet.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Most of the above answers are about how TOCs will/may work, not about what GBR does.
There's a tendency to call GBR "government" which is not necessarily the case - any more than NR is "government" today.
GBR will have some sort of day-to-day autonomy/distance from the government/DfT/Treasury, who will still set the framework for the railway.

Roscos, Open Access, freight and rolling stock ownership do not change, but they will have to adapt to the new GBR regime.
The regulatory side of the railway (ORR/RSSB/fares etc) also does not necessarily change, but we'll have to see in the legislation.

The Regions may change - otherwise Northern will be split NE/NW among other anomalies (XC, TPE are others).
Scotland, Wales and current concessions (ME, LO) will be different, but may still be part of the GBR architecture.
GBR will own the timetable and fares, and possibly the ticket retailing system.
The TOCs are already essentially operating under short-term "concessions" as a result of the loss of revenue because of Covid.
Concession lengths up to 10 years have been mooted after GBR is formed, with private bids expected/assumed.
Long-distance TOCs may have more autonomy than the rest.
It's rather unclear how HS1, HS2 and NPR fit into the GBR model.

 

[Wyrleybart]

surely the simple answer at this stage is that no one really knows the detail as of yet.

No but it is being created. Lots of GBR jobs being announced presumably to transition from the current NR model

I get the impression that marketing will pass from TOCs to GBR but it will be interesting to see how the latter assume the capacity on trains to apply the marketing. Presume Revenue checking is still conde by the concessions, to the specification laid out by GBR maybe ?

 

[Scanderina]

1. They will be run like a concession operator like the overground. They will be given the timetable which they have to run.

2. Operators will select the rolling stock but GBR will heavily specify the requirements.

3. No change to ROSCOs

4. GBR will be structured into the NR 5 regions but there may be a few changes for some parts.

5. GBR will specify catering and likely that the operator will have incentisation to grow catering revenue.

6. Sorry, Not my area of knowledge but there will be a dedicated freight team in GBR

7. No change to OAs

Just to add: (4) There will continue to be services that move across regions, as there are today, and (6) There will be little change for freight, they will continue to be private companies and will pay GBR for access. In short, the main change from the current situation is that DfT's franchising role will be shifted into a new body that also includes NR, with some branding exercises to follow.

 

[akm]

There are a lot of confident "will"s in this thread, which sit slightly uneasily with the "maybe GBR will sort all this out" uncertainty on other threads. I wonder on what all these confident "will"s are based on?

 

[MagicMonkey]

.... Too many acronyms - my head hurts!

 

[geoffk]

What economies of scale will be achieved by GBR? Surely this is important, given the current state of railway finances. Will the "delay attribution" regime disappear? This must employ a large staff for little overall benefit to the railway. Will drivers be able to drive trains of the same type operated by a different TOC - for example, a GWR driver in the West Country being able to drive a Cross-Country HST? Will there be a gradual standardisation on types of train and couplers rather than the VHS/Betamax approach? I guess we don't know the answers to these questions and many others but they all seem relevant.

 

[43066]

What economies of scale will be achieved by GBR? Surely this is important, given the current state of railway finances.

One would assume that things like branding/marketing and some management functions might become more centralised. It’s not clear to what extent other things will, such as HR for example, as employment will be left to individual franchises.

Will the "delay attribution" regime disappear? This must employ a large staff for little overall benefit to the railway.

It has been discussed on here that relatively few people are employed *solely* doing delay attribution, and of course it will remain a necessary activity, just as it was under “traditional” BR, to improve performance.

Will drivers be able to drive trains of the same type operated by a different TOC - for example, a GWR driver in the West Country being able to drive a Cross-Country HST?

Theoretically. It depends whether driver depots are substantially changed. This isn’t a completely new concept and has been done before under franchising to a limited extent - eg Southeastern crews operating Southern and Thameslink services.

The main restriction here is route knowledge, and drivers having enormous route cards is actually quite inefficient, as it requires time off track to refresh routes not regularly worked over, or provision of route conductors. For this reason the tendency has been for depots to sign fewer routes, as with Thameslink since 2018. The downside is there is then less flexibility for depots to cross cover each others’ work.

Will there be a gradual standardisation on types of train and couplers rather than the VHS/Betamax approach?

Already happened with Dellners to a large extent, albeit couplers aren’t so much of an issue as software eg even relatively modern units such as 222s and 220/1s can’t work in multiple, despite having the same couplings, and being largely the same train.

It’s difficult to see much further scope for standardisation of rolling stock types, given how much sub 5yo stock there is out there now, which will be around for the next 30 years +!

 

[Egg Centric]

What's the justification for keeping the "primarily abstractive revenue" test for OAOs if we are moving to concessions where the private operator gets a guaranteed income?

It seems like there could be an opportunity for real innovation with OAOs if it was now removed

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What economies of scale will be achieved by GBR? Surely this is important, given the current state of railway finances. Will the "delay attribution" regime disappear? This must employ a large staff for little overall benefit to the railway. Will drivers be able to drive trains of the same type operated by a different TOC - for example, a GWR driver in the West Country being able to drive a Cross-Country HST? Will there be a gradual standardisation on types of train and couplers rather than the VHS/Betamax approach? I guess we don't know the answers to these questions and many others but they all seem relevant.

At the heart of the current setup are the individual safety cases the TOCs need to operate on NR property, approved by ORR.
If GBR establishes a single national safety case to which its TOCs conform then fine, but I suspect that is not what is envisioned at the moment.
It comes down to who is the employer (TOC or GBR) and what terms and conditions they set.
I doubt the present government wants a monolithic setup which would allow the unions to bring the entire railway to a halt, as it did on BR.

While there are private operators on the railway, some "level playing field" commercial rules will be necessary, and delay attribution is one of those.
Freight and open access will still need protection from the predatory GBR operators (and vice versa).
I think even BR had delay attribution of some kind in its sector days.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I think even BR had delay attribution of some kind in its sector days.

Precisely!. I don't know how many times that it has to be repeated that BR invented delay attribution and its underlying 'TRUST' computer system for the purposes of performance management and improvement.

Beware any 'new' railway model that just says, "we don't need to worry about performance now that the DfT (or other concessioning body) is taking all the risk".

Even in relation to the very first run by Trevithick's steam locomotive on the Pen-y-darren line in 1804 it is recorded that the journey was extended by having to deal with overhanging vegetation on the downwards trip and a fractured axle on the return.

 

[Watershed]

What's the justification for keeping the "primarily abstractive revenue" test for OAOs if we are moving to concessions where the private operator gets a guaranteed income?

It seems like there could be an opportunity for real innovation with OAOs if it was now removed

The reason for the test's existence hasn't changed.

Before, it was about the risk of operators bidding a lower premium/higher subsidy if they had to contend with unrestricted competition - or requiring indemnification from the DfT if competitors' applications were to be uncontested.

Now, it is about the risk of OAOs cannibalising revenue from the TOCs - and thus the DfT.

Same difference really.

The ORR are now applying the test much more strictly than before, on the basis that the government has heavily subsidised the industry during Covid. This seems pretty poor reasoning to me, as it essentially protects the position of existing OAOs whilst excluding new entrants. But that is the only area where I can foresee changes.

 

[irish_rail]

Theoretically. It depends whether driver depots are substantially changed. This isn’t a completely new concept and has been done before under franchising to a limited extent - eg Southeastern crews operating Southern and Thameslink services.

The main restriction here is route knowledge, and drivers having enormous route cards is actually quite inefficient, as it requires time off track to refresh routes not regularly worked over, or provision of route conductors. For this reason the tendency has been for depots to sign fewer routes, as with Thameslink since 2018. The downside is there is then less flexibility for depots to cross cover each others’ work.

But at a depot like Plymouth, having all XC and GWR drivers able to drive all core traction (80x , HST and Voyager) on the core route that everyone from both sides signs (Penzance to Taunton) would surely be a no brainer.
The idea that XC men would learn Paddington and GWR men learn Birmingham is probably less likely.

 

[swt_passenger]

But at a depot like Plymouth, having all XC and GWR drivers able to drive all core traction (80x , HST and Voyager) on the core route that everyone from both sides signs (Penzance to Taunton) would surely be a no brainer.
The idea that XC men would learn Paddington and GWR men learn Birmingham is probably less likely.

Wouldn’t it be even more useful for all GWR drivers to drive all the existing GWR stock, and on all GWR routes?

 

[43066]

But at a depot like Plymouth, having all XC and GWR drivers able to drive all core traction (80x , HST and Voyager) on the core route that everyone from both sides signs (Penzance to Taunton) would surely be a no brainer.
The idea that XC men would learn Paddington and GWR men learn Birmingham is probably less likely.

I’m sure there are some limited corridors where it would make sense (LNER and XC Edinburgh - Newcastle might be another?) But also depends on what those services (and crews) do afterwards, and whether you then introduce more crew relieving points which is a performance no-no.

Probably only really works where TOCs are currently running services between the same two points, and where both currently have separate depots. I doubt there are that many of those around the network.

Wouldn’t it be even more useful for all GWR drivers to drive all the existing GWR stock, and on all GWR routes?

You’d then be running into the problem I mentioned above of massive, unwieldy route cards which it would be impossible for drivers (and TMs) to cover often enough not to need refresher training. Fewer but longer routes signed, with fewer crew changeovers*, seems to be the best approach to improve utilisation and reliability.

*Another example of this from TL was closing Blackfriars depot because drivers being relieved in the core was a regular cause of delays if the relief didn’t turn up due to disruption.

 

[swt_passenger]

You’d then be running into the problem I mentioned above of massive, unwieldy route cards which it would be impossible for drivers (and TMs) to cover often enough not to need refresher training. Fewer but longer routes signed, with fewer crew changeovers*, seems to be the best approach to improve utilisation and reliability.

I didn’t really mean throughout the entire GWR network. But I get the impression from posts now and again that some GWR drivers are still not fully cross trained on all their own local traction and routes? Didn’t they start from separate links for HSS and other local routes in the West Country?

 

[Egg Centric]

The reason for the test's existence hasn't changed.

Before, it was about the risk of operators bidding a lower premium/higher subsidy if they had to contend with unrestricted competition - or requiring indemnification from the DfT if competitors' applications were to be uncontested.

Now, it is about the risk of OAOs cannibalising revenue from the TOCs - and thus the DfT.

Same difference really.

The ORR are now applying the test much more strictly than before, on the basis that the government has heavily subsidised the industry during Covid. This seems pretty poor reasoning to me, as it essentially protects the position of existing OAOs whilst excluding new entrants. But that is the only area where I can foresee changes.

I'm not convinced this is a good idea. If I understood what was meant by concession correctly the revenue makes no difference to the TOC, and the DfT shouldn't be trying to maximise revenue (as taken to a logical conclusion that means implement Serpell). Maximising innovation through a 'free for all' in open access could be very interesting indeed.

 

[irish_rail]

I didn’t really mean throughout the entire GWR network. But I get the impression from posts now and again that some GWR drivers are still not fully cross trained on all their own local traction and routes? Didn’t they start from separate links for HSS and other local routes in the West Country?

This is down to the time it takes to train up drivers. Moves are apace to get for example all the newbies at Plymouth trained up on all routes and traction, but it all takes time, and covid hasn't helped matters.
In a couple of years time, theoretically drivers will all sign all traction and routes applicable to their depots.

I’m sure there are some limited corridors where it would make sense (LNER and XC Edinburgh - Newcastle might be another?) But also depends on what those services (and crews) do afterwards, and whether you then introduce more crew relieving points which is a performance no-no.

Probably only really works where TOCs are currently running services between the same two points, and where both currently have separate depots. I doubt there are that many of those around the network.



You’d then be running into the problem I mentioned above of massive, unwieldy route cards which it would be impossible for drivers (and TMs) to cover often enough not to need refresher training. Fewer but longer routes signed, with fewer crew changeovers*, seems to be the best approach to improve utilisation and reliability.

*Another example of this from TL was closing Blackfriars depot because drivers being relieved in the core was a regular cause of delays if the relief didn’t turn up due to disruption.

I agree with you that limiting crew changeovers gives a big performance boost. First group however do seem to be a fan of as many crew changes as possible on route at present, look at new depots popping up at Cardiff, Swindon, (gwr) , Crewe (avanti).
However, I think, and hope the tide is beginning to change and common sense is returning (for example Plymouth drivers have gone from doing 3 trains a day to London last year up to 7 since December as somebody twigged having a driver drive Plymouth to Padd and back is better than lots of drivers changing over on route at Exeter and Reading, and the added performance implications!

 

[D6130]

Plymouth drivers have gone from doing 3 trains a day to London last year up to 7 since December as somebody twigged having a driver drive Plymouth to Padd and back is better than

That's a heck of a long shift! Presumably you meant 'per week' rather than 'per day'!