Greater Anglia to be Nationalised

[F Great Eastern]

A uniform, new fleet that was to be fair a major part of GA/Abellio's bid for the franchise (to have a 100% new fleet by the end of it). A lot of people doubted it would work and it definitely had some teething propblems, but they are certainly reeping the rewards now.

Covid bailed them out to a large degree, at one point they were short forming not far short of 100 services a day, the old stock plummeted in terms of reliability, the new stock was running very late and prone to breakdowns (hence the nickname Basils) the whole signalling issue when the new trains and it was looming that some fleets were due to be withdrawn for not complying with PRM legislation and others were due to return off lease before they had enough new stock. But before the problems got any worse, Covid happened and really saved their bacon from what would have been a period of discontent. I seem to remember a lot of spin coming from the press office as well.

To their credit though, through the Covid period they did use that opportunity to make some changes in the organisation that were for the better and since Covid they have been nothing short of excellent, shoring up the areas that were not quite as strong as the others and since the new fleets have settled down things have generally been pretty excellent and it's hard to find a single fault with them. They fully deserve the awards that they have won lately and the staff have always been excellent and continue to do so and be very customer focused. I have no fears when using GA services whatsoever that whatever happens they will deal with it in the right way and use common sense and passenger friendly actions.

It's really sad to see them go, just as it was very sad to see First Great Eastern go all those years ago. I hope that most of the integral figures get to keep their jobs if not all of them and if they don't then just like the old days of FGE, those who played a big contribution in turning around the shambles that was NXEA/One get to take home some of the trophies that they won for the organisation through their hard work.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It won’t be a silver bullet for anything- same staff, same management, same budget. The advantage is you’re not paying millions a year for old rope, that’s all.

No, but you will be paying for an indeterminate GBR HQ at Derby and elsewhere whose policies and decisions may not be in the best interests of GA-area customers.
The public will probably lose the transparency of annual localised business reports and periodic re-specification of services and investment.
It all depends on how GBR is set up and organised, and while the number of separate operating contracts will reduce, they are likely to be just as voluminous and prescriptive as they are now.
A coordinated rolling stock policy may help some TOCs, but will hardly affect the GA operation with its brand new fleet in place.

 

[dk1]

Agreed - GA are excellent. The only differences I would have had is for the Class 745s to have all had tables on the Stansted Airport trains, and for more to have been ordered for them to serve Ely/Cambridge services and Ipswich/Clacton semi-fasts. I would also have made the 720s, 2+2 seating and run on the commuter services.

Tables are being installed throughout the ten 745/1s. Unfortunately it was the DfT who insisted on 3+2 seating for the 720 fleet.

 

[williamn]

The advantage is you’re not paying millions a year for old rope, that’s all.

The millions are absolute peanuts in the grand scheme of things and GBR will also have overheads, possibly greater ones in the start up phase.

 

[OneOfThe48]

Tables are being installed throughout the ten 745/1s. Unfortunately it was the DfT who insisted on 3+2 seating for the 720 fleet.

3+2 has the downside of less room for standing passengers (and those isles on the 720s are very tight!) but people do use the middle seats and I, and I think most people, would prefer to keep them to have more chance to sit down

 

[1000 rounders]

The t&c’s amalgamation at GNR will be fascinating to see

 

[JonathanH]

The t&c’s amalgamation at GNR will be fascinating to see

New entrants first and deal with legacy second is the usual approach.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, but you will be paying for an indeterminate GBR HQ at Derby and elsewhere whose policies and decisions may not be in the best interests of GA-area customers.

GBR will also have overheads, possibly greater ones in the start up phase

Franchises don’t procure themselves, and nor do they monitor themselves.

As I said, it’s certainly no silver bullet, but there will be financial advantages.

 

[Western Lord]

People should be careful what they wish for. How long under a nationalised railway before someone decides that those nice Class 755s are far to good to be trundling to Sheringham and Sudbury and wants them transferred elsewhere (notwithstanding training and maintenance considerations).

 

[Bletchleyite]

People should be careful what they wish for. How long under a nationalised railway before someone decides that those nice Class 755s are far to good to be trundling to Sheringham and Sudbury and wants them transferred elsewhere (notwithstanding training and maintenance considerations).

While the locals may not like it, more efficient redeployment of rolling stock is one of the benefits of nationalisation. I'm not saying this stock should be moved (it's not a speculative thread in any case) but a single organisation can obviously do things more efficiently than lots of organisations in this regard.

 

[Magdalia]

People should be careful what they wish for. How long under a nationalised railway before someone decides that those nice Class 755s are far to good to be trundling to Sheringham and Sudbury and wants them transferred elsewhere (notwithstanding training and maintenance considerations).

While the locals may not like it, more efficient redeployment of rolling stock is one of the benefits of nationalisation. I'm not saying this stock should be moved (it's not a speculative thread in any case) but a single organisation can obviously do things more efficiently than lots of organisations in this regard.

I think it is unlikely that class 755s will be moved away from Crown Point.

But if Greater Anglia really did what it said on the tin, then it would be operating the trains Norwich-Ely-Peterborough and Stansted-Cambridge-Ely-Peterborough. That could be a benefit of nationalisation, and it could mean redeployment of the class 755s. But at the moment that's speculation so I'll stop there!

 

[dk1]

People should be careful what they wish for. How long under a nationalised railway before someone decides that those nice Class 755s are far to good to be trundling to Sheringham and Sudbury and wants them transferred elsewhere (notwithstanding training and maintenance considerations).

The Sheringham branch reaches speeds of up to 75mph south of Walsham so not exactly trundling. It’s also taken around £100m to adapt and rebuild Crown Point Depot to maintain the Stadler fleet. They ain’t going anywhere.

But if Greater Anglia really did what it said on the tin, then it would be operating the trains Norwich-Ely-Peterborough and Stansted-Cambridge-Ely-Peterborough. That could be a benefit of nationalisation, and it could mean redeployment of the class 755s. But at the moment that's speculation so I'll stop there!

Using that scenario would lead to a great loss of through services from East Anglia and so extremely unlikely to happen either.

 

[aron2smith]

Agreed - GA are excellent. The only differences I would have had is for the Class 745s to have all had tables on the Stansted Airport trains, and for more to have been ordered for them to serve Ely/Cambridge services and Ipswich/Clacton semi-fasts. I would also have made the 720s, 2+2 seating and run on the commuter services.

Yeah agreed on the new rolling stock, I miss the tables and the trains on the commuter services are too narrow. When it's a 720, I try to board at the very front or by the disabled toilets as walking through the carriage is difficult. Just glad they have seats by the doors for when it's busy! Also a shame the 720s lack level boarding when everything else on Greater Anglia has it now!

 

[Magdalia]

Using that scenario would lead to a great loss of through services from East Anglia and so extremely unlikely to happen either.

It would be a loss, but not a great loss, and would be outweighed by the gains.

The flows from Norwich beyond Peterborough are not big: Nottingham 11k, Sheffield 8k, Manchester 9k and Liverpool 2k. By comparison Norwich-Peterborough is 41k then there is at 18k of journeys Norwich-Leeds/York/Edinburgh that involve a change at Peterborough. Most passengers in and out of Norwich are not coming from or going beyond Peterborough.

Cambridge would gain even more than Norwich. Cambridge has 80k journeys to/from Peterborough, and 33k journeys to/from Leeds/York/Edinburgh. By comparison the flows beyond Peterborough are Birmingham 15k and Leicester 11k. And that's without even considering the 45k Stansted Airport-Peterborough passengers.

In particular a class 755 Stansted-Peterborough service would be a huge improvement for a lot of passengers.

 

[dk1]

It would be a loss, but not a great loss, and would be outweighed by the gains.

The flows from Norwich beyond Peterborough are not big: Nottingham 11k, Sheffield 8k, Manchester 9k and Liverpool 2k. By comparison Norwich-Peterborough is 41k then there is at 18k of journeys Norwich-Leeds/York/Edinburgh that involve a change at Peterborough. Most passengers in and out of Norwich are not coming from or going beyond Peterborough.

Cambridge would gain even more than Norwich. Cambridge has 80k journeys to/from Peterborough, and 33k journeys to/from Leeds/York/Edinburgh. By comparison the flows beyond Peterborough are Birmingham 15k and Leicester 11k. And that's without even considering the 45k Stansted Airport-Peterborough passengers.

In particular a class 755 Stansted-Peterborough service would be a huge improvement for a lot of passengers.

But you've still got to provide those services Peterborough to Birmingham and Peterborough to Nottingham/beyond. It would be lunacy to split them and have two sets of terminating services.

 

[Ianigsy]

Very likely. When an operator goes to the DfT, the only people who usually disappear are the owning group directors.

And GA isn’t going to GBR, that comes later.

I suppose the other side of the coin is that it might be seen as an opportunity to rotate some of the managers out to less successful operators and bring others in to see how it should be done.

 

[Magdalia]

But you've still got to provide those services Peterborough to Birmingham and Peterborough to Nottingham/beyond. It would be lunacy to split them and have two sets of terminating services.

No it would not be lunacy. It would be an overdue recognition that long distance cross country journeys are a relatively minor part of what the 21st century railway does, that they are not resilient in a congested network, and that those services need to prioritise the much bigger short distance flows that support their local economies. Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough would also benefit from a service that could concentrate on the short distance flows.

The current pattern of services was set by privatisation 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then and the railway needs to adapt not be stuck in the past. Great British Railways will be an opportunity to do that.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No it would not be lunacy. It would be an overdue recognition that long distance cross country journeys are a relatively minor part of what the 21st century railway does, that they are not resilient in a congested network, and that those services need to prioritise the much bigger short distance flows that support their local economies. Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough would also benefit from a service that could concentrate on the short distance flows.

The current pattern of services was set by privatisation 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then and the railway needs to adapt not be stuck in the past. Great British Railways will be an opportunity to do that.

The railway is years away from being in a position to undertake any drastic reorganisation of services however sensible your proposition is.

 

[dk1]

No it would not be lunacy. It would be an overdue recognition that long distance cross country journeys are a relatively minor part of what the 21st century railway does, that they are not resilient in a congested network, and that those services need to prioritise the much bigger short distance flows that support their local economies. Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough would also benefit from a service that could concentrate on the short distance flows.

The current pattern of services was set by privatisation 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then and the railway needs to adapt not be stuck in the past. Great British Railways will be an opportunity to do that.

Thankfully I can’t see anything changing for years if at all.

 

[canary fan]

I strongly support rail renationalisation, but would've been quite happy for Greater Anglia to go last. Excellent TOC, rarely had issues with them beyond a train being more than a couple minutes late! Ely Junction was the only real issue at times. Like C2C it was very reliable. I hope it isn't the end of the flexible hare fares as I really enjoying using them at the moment (and in the last couple years!) and would be cool to see fare reform based a bit on this offer! The latest one reduced nearly all the fares on Greater Anglia's network down to just 4 prices from £7 return for short trips up to £28 return for the longest ones. A day trip from London to Norfolk (£28) or Clacton (£22) or Southend (£14) suddenly became excellent value compared to the normal fares.

Also, possibly the only TOC in recent times to fully replace all its trains and most have built in level boarding now! Regional services are very busy now too. Can't say enough good about them, may even miss them a little. Hopefully the staff and management stays as it is and can teach best practice to other parts of GBR. Overall, I'm hoping the government wastes no time with GBR and immediately restores sectorisation, so it's just Intercity, Regional Railways and Network South East again, but of course with decent input from the devolved regional governments and mayors this time.

I agree with this. I use GA frequently and they are head and shoulders above other operators in terms of reliability, punctuality, availability of reasonable fares and overcrowding. They will hopefully provide a blueprint for a future fully nationalised railway.

 

[Class 170101]

No it would not be lunacy. It would be an overdue recognition that long distance cross country journeys are a relatively minor part of what the 21st century railway does, that they are not resilient in a congested network, and that those services need to prioritise the much bigger short distance flows that support their local economies. Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough would also benefit from a service that could concentrate on the short distance flows.

Yes it would be lunacy. There is a flow across both the whole route and between Intermediate station pairs that aren't adjacent to each other (eg Leicester to Ely). Also the stations that you propose to split at are stations with mainly through platforms rather than terminating bays

The current pattern of services was set by privatisation 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then and the railway needs to adapt not be stuck in the past. Great British Railways will be an opportunity to do that.

Yes a lot has changed since then including people liking direct trains because connections aren't held as meeting performance targets is seen as more important. I'm actually hoping for the Leicester to New Street service to be extended east beyond Leicester towards either Cambridge (more likely) or Norwich (less likely) at some point.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Lots of praise going to GA here which i do think is deserved. However (and I don't know if it's been said yet), I don't think you can take them as much of a blueprint for the notoriously failing TOCs out there. Mainly because I think GA's patch has pretty favourable railway geography. They don't interact with that many other operators outside of the Cambridge to Ely area, compared to some other franchises they're practically an island. The network is essentially two separate mainlines each with branches. Since BR days there's been a pretty clear demarcations between what was a suburban service, an intercity one, and a rural service. GA were able to take advantage of that with fleet uniformity. I'm not sure it's very comparable to the most notorious TOCs like AWC or especially Northern which is totally disparate collection of at least 3 or 4 TOCs hiding under a trench coat. What I'm saying is, GA were handed pretty good bones to develop out of. I'm not sure what TOC they're directly comparable to, perhaps SWR? Although they have a much more significant suburban operation

 

[Zomboid]

With the Overground and Crossrail having taken over the services, GA don't really have any inner suburban operations to worry about. Though obviously they're still there on the railway and capable of getting in the way.

They've obviously become pretty good at running what they've got, but it's not really a blueprint for anything other than running the railways of East Anglia. Hopefully GBR management will realise that their job is just not messing it up.

 

[Magdalia]

I think GA's patch has pretty favourable railway geography. They don't interact with that many other operators outside of the Cambridge to Ely area, compared to some other franchises they're practically an island.

You are spot on here.

One of the merits of my proposal to break cross country routes at Peterborough is that it further reduces contamination of Greater Anglia from the rest of the network.

people liking direct trains because connections aren't held as meeting performance targets is seen as more important

Long distance cross country services import delays from one part of the network to the other. They are part of the problem not part of the solution.

The lack of direct trains does not seem to be putting off people travelling between Norwich/Cambridge and Leeds/York, journeys which all involve a change at Peterborough.

There is a flow across both the whole route and between Intermediate station pairs that aren't adjacent to each other (eg Leicester to Ely).

But these flows are small. Ely-Leicester is 7k. It is nowhere near as important as having a reliable and resilient service between Cambridge and Peterborough.

 

[Wivenswold]

The biggest problem for passengers traveling across country using more than one operator has been missed connections for those with advance tickets. Some TOCs (like GA) take a pragmatic approach and charge a small additional fee, others just go straight to penalty fare.

A "one company" approach with fares and in particular what they do with those who get stranded because their booked connecting train has left, will massively benefit passengers and make such journeys much less stressful.

 

[transportphoto]

The biggest problem for passengers traveling across country using more than one operator has been missed connections for those with advance tickets. Some TOCs (like GA) take a pragmatic approach and charge a small additional fee, others just go straight to penalty fare.

A missed connection (e.g. the railways fault) at will see you carried on the next available service of the same operator based on current rules (or another operator with some pragmatism). Can you elaborate on your small additional fee and/or penalty fare comment?

 

[Zomboid]

A missed connection (e.g. the railways fault) at will see you carried on the next available service of the same operator based on current rules (or another operator with some pragmatism). Can you elaborate on your small additional fee and/or penalty fare comment?

I think if you're doing a split ticket and fail to get yourself to the start of a leg on time then technically that's on you.

A missed connection due to the railway failing during a journey is definitely the railways problem.

 

[saismee]

I think if you're doing a split ticket and fail to get yourself to the start of a leg on time then technically that's on you.

That's not a missed connection, that's just missing your train altogether because of your own fault.

I agree about the additional fee/PF comment not making complete sense as missing a connection due to a delay/cancellation entitles you to travel on the train before or after, so no fee needed and any penalty fare would be entirely invalid.

 

[Zomboid]

That's not a missed connection, that's just missing your train altogether because of your own fault.

Yes, but the reason for not making it to the train on time might be that you were using another train to get there and it was delayed.

This is why I never buy split tickets on advance tickets.

 

[transportphoto]

Yes, but the reason for not making it to the train on time might be that you were using another train to get there and it was delayed.

This is why I never buy split tickets on advance tickets.

This is off topic for this thread - but you’ve a fundamental misunderstanding. Splits give the same level of protection as a through ticket when it comes to delayed trains causing missed connections. It may be worth starting a new thread in the Fares Advice area if you’d like to discuss this further Feel free to quote these posts across.