Great British Railways: Replaces Network Rail & more changes - updates only (non-speculative)

[AdamWW]

DfT hold the trade mark to the double arrow logo and it is licensed to RDG.

Didn't they take it on when the residual BRB was wound up?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Now available to view...
BBC iPlayer - House of Commons - Live Future of the Railways Statement

And we're not a lot wiser after an hour of that.
The important questions were artfully batted away, and there was the usual fill of local lobbying for my station/train/line.
There is a session next Wednesday before the Transport Select Committee which might reveal more.
And I suspect there are several more government announcements in the pipeline (Integrated Rail Plan etc).
Today was just to reset the top-level agenda really.

 

[peters]

And in the Williams-Shapps review, the Integrated Rail Plan is referenced as being: “This is just the beginning: the government will shortly be announcing further major projects in the Midlands and North, including in our Integrated Rail Plan, electrifcation schemes and further Beeching reopening projects.”

I'm sure I read a reference to a 30 year plan somewhere, so those projects may not be happening soon.

 

[matt_world2004]

Should we be concerned about the future of Merseyrail as a self-contained urban operation, more like Tyne & Wear Metro in many ways than National Rail?

There was something in the white paper about working together with devolved transport services to deliver a service that works for all customers

Bit of fluff but it indicates that devolved transport services will continue.

 

[stuu]

The point is, unlike quite a few private sector businesses which ended up voluntarily returning furlough money to the Treasury because they had enough funds to not need it, TfL ran to the government for bailout funding very quickly. It had no alternative funding routes to get them through bad times. The same would likely be the case with GBR.

Obviously it would, how could that not be the case? What alternative funding sources should a local transport agency possibly access than government funding? None of the firms who returned furlough money were ones which had lost 90% or more of their customers either

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

There was something in the white paper about working together with devolved transport services to deliver a service that works for all customers

Bit of fluff but it indicates that devolved transport services will continue.

The way I read it, TfW will carry on much as before but will have to put a GBR logo on its trains (probably where the Wales & Borders logo is now), use the new typeface on signage and share a website. That last one will probably go out of the window the second they realise it would mean the whole darn thing would need to be bilingual.

The only other mention is that TfW and GBR should work together to improve services between Wales and the West of England and between Wales and the West Midlands, something the Welsh Government and TfW are desperate to do anyway.

You could even argue that GBR is based on the TfW model.

 

[WatcherZero]

Having read it, you can definetley see two layers to it, the Williams Review and what Shapps has put over the top. E.g. It says Government shouldnt have direct decision making, then says Ministers will make all the big spending decisions and can basically intervene anywhere and anywhen they want to provide direct orders. It says they want to get away from multiple company logos and have a single brand, then a paragraph later it says each nation will have a unique double arrow logo (i.e. double arrow logo will be different in England, Wales and Scotland).

 

[Ianno87]

Having read it, you can definetley see two layers to it, the Williams Review and what Shapps has put over the top. E.g. It says Government shouldnt have direct decision making, then says Ministers will make all the big spending decisions and cant basically intervene anywhere and anywhen they want to provide direct orders. It says they want to get away from multiple company logos and have a single brand, then a paragraph later it says each nation will have a unique double arrow logo (i.e. double arrow logo will be different in England, Wales and Scotland).

Imagining Shapps sending a Word copy to Williams with Track Changes turned on.

 

[zwk500]

Having read it, you can definetley see two layers to it, the Williams Review and what Shapps has put over the top. E.g. It says Government shouldnt have direct decision making, then says Ministers will make all the big spending decisions and can basically intervene anywhere and anywhen they want to provide direct orders.

Funny that, a report telling politicians to get out of it is overwritten by a politician giving themselves powers to mess it all up when they feel like it...

It says they want to get away from multiple company logos and have a single brand, then a paragraph later it says each nation will have a unique double arrow logo (i.e. double arrow logo will be different in England, Wales and Scotland).

Tbf, the same branding with variations on colours works quite well for a number of organisations both in and out of transport. I can imagine Scotland having a White Double Arrow on Blue, England having a White Double Arrow on Red and Wales having a Red Double Arrow on A White/Green background. It could work quite well.

 

[Wolfie]

The point is, unlike quite a few private sector businesses which ended up voluntarily returning furlough money to the Treasury because they had enough funds to not need it, TfL ran to the government for bailout funding very quickly. It had no alternative funding routes to get them through bad times. The same would likely be the case with GBR.

Re your penultimate sentence nor did any of the TOCs all of which turned to the Government too. If your whole financial model is based on income and that then completely ceases why is that a surprise? That is exactly the situation that BoZo's agreement when Mayor with Gideon left TfL in.

Those private sector businesses you talk about were likely firstly profitable pre-COVID; secondly diversified so that some business continued; or thirdly supplied essentials where demand continued e.g. food.

Funny that, a report telling politicians to get out of it is overwritten by a politician giving themselves powers to mess it all up when they feel like it...

Tbf, the same branding with variations on colours works quite well for a number of organisations both in and out of transport. I can imagine Scotland having a White Double Arrow on Blue, England having a White Double Arrow on Red and Wales having a Red Double Arrow on A White/Green background. It could work quite well.

Re your first para you really couldn't write the irony could you?

Re your second para l can see Scotland wanting eff all to do with an attempted English Tory imposition. Once Scotland takes that view Wales won't be far behind.

 

[zwk500]

I can see Scotland wanting eff all to do with an attempted English Tory impostion.

I agree with you. But I suspect Holyrood has plenty more fights to pick with Westminster in the next Scottish Parliament's life and they may decide that the branding on trains isn't quite the hill they want to die on - yet.

Transport Scotland already have significant input into NR scotland region and Scotrail so I wouldn't expect any massive changes when it does switch over.

 

[Wolfie]

I agree with you. But I suspect Holyrood has plenty more fights to pick with Westminster in the next Scottish Parliament's life and they may decide that the branding on trains isn't quite the hill they want to die on - yet.

Transport Scotland already have significant input into NR scotland region and Scotrail so I wouldn't expect any massive changes when it does switch over.

More grist to the SNP independence mill. The more high-handed BoZo is the more he will drive independence demands. He is utterly despised in Scotland.

 

[Tobberz]

Honestly the saddest thing about all of this for me is the inevitable end of attractive and diverse branding and liveries.
*Thinks about the beauty that is GWR*

 

[Elecman]

More grist to the SNP independence mill. The more high-handed BoZo is the more he will drive independence demands. He is utterly despised in Scotland.

And in most of England too

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The way I read it, TfW will carry on much as before but will have to put a GBR logo on its trains (probably where the Wales & Borders logo is now), use the new typeface on signage and share a website. That last one will probably go out of the window the second they realise it would mean the whole darn thing would need to be bilingual.

The only other mention is that TfW and GBR should work together to improve services between Wales and the West of England and between Wales and the West Midlands, something the Welsh Government and TfW are desperate to do anyway.

You could even argue that GBR is based on the TfW model.

I couldn't work out why Wales-North West England wasn't mentioned - hopefully a slip of the pen.

I think it's possible/likely that Wales will go its own way with the Metro, to be more like Tyne & Wear and maybe outside GBR scope.
They'll have to accommodate cross-border services with GBR branding, and the same with their own cross-border services.
The rest (not much left, really) is probably up to them.
The infrastructure isn't going to be devolved any more than it is now, and all that is bilingual already.

Both Wales and Scotland will have an in-house "mini-GBR" (WG do already, SG is on the way).
Whether they also end up with an in-house operator like TfW-Rail after the OLR contracts disappear is not clear.
Grant Shapps deflected the Commons question about whether public sector operators could bid for concession contracts.
The White Paper doesn't make clear what legislation changes are coming either, but no doubt a Bill will appear this year sometime.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I couldn't work out why Wales-North West England wasn't mentioned - hopefully a slip of the pen.

Maybe because those improvements are already in hand with the planned introduction of direct services between Liverpool and both north and south Wales? I don't know, I'm guessing!

 

[AdamWW]

The price-differentiated market on the WCML is about all I can think of. TOCs fighting over tickets costing £1 less is just pointless and doesn't drive improvement. Open Access sort of keeps itself to itself, mostly, it's filling gaps rather than genuine competition. First East Coast is the first (!) genuinely competitive OA proposal - I wonder if it will still happen?

Have they said anything about how/if open access fits into the new scheme of things?

While I feel for those whose jobs will be affected, being able to reduce the "blame jobs" (i.e. delay attribution) would be a start. You will still need it to some extent to push improvements, but it needn't be to quite the same extent if it's nominally one organisation.

And also to attribute delays between GBR, open access (if it still exists) and freight?

 

[ta-toget]

Yes. All existing contracts will be honoured.

I was going to ask whether new contracts might be awarded, but I decided to look it up. Page 58:

New open access services will also be explored where spare capacity exists.

 

[Bald Rick]

So the effort involved in delay attribution now is not actually much different to in BR days? That's certainly not the impression I generally get.

(edited because my question was already answered)

There’s more effort now for two reasons - firstly there are a lot more trains. Secondly the advent of delay repay means a lot more cash is returned to passengers when there are delays, and it is therefore in the industy’s interest to reduce delays to save this ‘reverse income’.

 

[Wolfie]

Too much of the media perception on this issue is driven by London-based journalists and commuters who seem woefully ignorant of the fact that other parts of the country have seen far more benefits from competition than their small corner of the UK.

You mean that "small corner of the UK" that contains approximately a third of the total population of the country and whose taxes subsidise the rest?

 

[Andyh82]

I think you get more from this report, the less you know about how the railways work at the moment

The general public will think the ironing board seats were specified because GTR wanted to save money to give back to ‘fat cat’ bosses, or that Northern continued to run pacers because Arriva were too tight to buy new trains, so surely it’s all the private companies fault?

Most of the issues that people have with the current system are already controlled by the DfT so will surely not change, or could probably change already without a big shake up

 

[The Planner]

Yes System Operator deals with timetabling (and other things besides). It will transfer across, but likely stay in MK.

I doubt anyone would be brave enough to reverse what happened in 2010 and split it back up based on the aftermath.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes System Operator deals with timetabling (and other things besides). It will transfer across, but likely stay in MK.

That, Sir, is speculation. Albeit I agree that timetabling will be unlikely to move from MK.

 

[zwk500]

That, Sir, is speculation. Albeit I agree that timetabling will be unlikely to move from MK.

I make no claim that timetabling will be structured or managed by GBR the same way NR do now. Just that the function of timetabling will be taken up by GBR. Apologies if I was suggesting nothing would change!

 

[Bald Rick]

Just that the function of timetabling will be taken up by GBR.

That’s the bit that’s speculation. I agree it’s possible, even probable, but certainly not been confirmed.

or will it actually make travel cheaper and more efficient?

Different questions of course.

 

[SteveT]

Skimming briskly through all of the above and the media reports, can the proposals be summarised thus: franchising and timetabling are to be moved from the DoT to Network Rail which will then be called Great BR?

 

[JaJaWa]

Skimming briskly through all of the above and the media reports, can the proposals be summarised thus: franchising and timetabling are to be moved from the DoT to Network Rail which will then be called Great BR?

Train operators will be paid based on the number of (clean) trains they operate rather than collecting ticketing revenue. And they will no longer have their own websites etc, it will all be GBR.

Management of stations will be undertaken by GBR, and Rail Delivery Group including NRE will also be merged in.

 

[SteveT]

Train operators will be paid based on the number of (clean) trains they operate rather than collecting ticketing revenue. And they will no longer have their own websites etc, it will all be GBR.

Management of stations will be undertaken by GBR, and Rail Delivery Group including NRE will also be merged in.

That's quite a 'downgrade' for the TOCs.

 

[TRAX]

That's quite a 'downgrade' for the TOCs.

I suppose that’s a bit of the objective ? Challenging them to operate the most trains they can from the timetable ? It’s like a carrot I guess

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That’s the bit that’s speculation. I agree it’s possible, even probable, but certainly not been confirmed.

Well, there's this in the Forward on p7 of the White Paper, repeated in the main body:

A new public body, Great British Railways, will own the infrastructure,
receive the fare revenue, run and plan the network and set most fares and timetables.
Network Rail, the current infrastructure owner, will be
absorbed into this new organisation, as will many functions from
the Rail Delivery Group and Department for Transport.

Not much room for doubt there, I would have thought.
Doubtless there are different levels of activity and not all will be in GBR HQ, but the strategic bit will surely?
No doubt it will impact the DfT, RDG and current TOC teams too.
I'd expect GBR (HQ) to manage the timetable cycle and publish the GBTT.
Not sure about the WTT, it might stay with the Regions/Routes , which are bound to be somewhat separate.
Speculation of course.
It quite clearly says NR will be "absorbed" into GBR.