How could the railways be better organised? Is greater regional control the answer?

[rapmastaj]

Something is going seriously wrong with rail in the UK at the moment. The woes of TPE, Avanti and co are all too plain, with TPE today issuing a "do not travel" alert, apparently due to software failures, although their wide-scale cancellations and staff shortages have been going on for months. The RMT strikes appear no closer to resolution, with the government predictably going for a 'no compromise' position and bizarrely trying to pin the blame for the strikes on Labour.

The recent changes to the franchising system mean that operators no longer bear the burden of financial risk, with the result that some of them seem happy to run as few trains as they can get away with. Meanwhile, cost-cutting is always likely to be at the top of the Treasury's agenda.

In theory, I would support rail nationalisation. But given that we have to expect this country will probably be ruled by Tories for at least two-thirds of the time, we need to understand the psychology of Tory politicians. They wanted privatisation to work, so they were happy to support it by offering large quantities of funding to underpin a privatised rail system. I can't see the Treasury doing the same for rail if it was nationalised.

To be clear, I don't want this thread to lapse into another list of sparsely-used branch lines could be closed to save a few pennies. I believe that is entirely the wrong approach. As part of our public transport system, rail provides a vital public service, with wide-ranging benefits for people's health and wellbeing, preventing social exclusion, supporting local economies and decarbonisation, and preventing air pollution, congestion, road deaths and the many other costs of over-reliance on private car use. We need to support the expansion and greater use of rail.

There's one possible solution that I can see, and that's to push for more devolution and local control over public transport at the regional level. In places like Scotland and London, where local bodies have control over transport policy, rail has seen much more sustained and consistent support than in areas where it relies on the whims of Westminster. If this approach could be applied across the whole of England, perhaps with more powers (especially financial ones) given to Metro Mayors like Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin, or to bodies like Transport for the North, I think the results could be positive. Of course, long-distance franchises cross many parts of the UK, so it's not clear exactly how this approach could apply to them, but there must be some solutions out there. It does seem to me that the more power is removed from Westminster to local/regional levels, the better.

 

[SargeNpton]

So, instead of the whims of Westminster, you will replace it with the whims of the local mayors/transport bodies.

Inevitably you will get some regions only having a parochial view of the routes under their control, not wishing for "their" trains to travel over foreign tracks and to terminating at the last station on their side of the border; or for adjacent regions not agreeing on the fine details of the policy where there are overarching common interests.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think the urban areas need an urban transport authority which is properly funded and responsible for services within their area (and by agreement with surrounding Councils, surrounding commuter areas, e.g. Ormskirk is not in the Liverpool City Region but is served by Merseyrail; nobody would gain from buffer stops at Maghull North). The PTEs/ITAs fulfil that role and just need a slightly expanded role and funding closer to what it was in the 1970s when they came into being.

I would similarly add such authorities for contiguous rural areas. In particular I think our major National Parks, most notably the Peak Park, Snowdonia/Eryri and the Lake District, should have similar authorities as they have very specific transport needs that are actually more urban than rural in nature due to the huge numbers of visitors.

Beyond that it's difficult. I don't think it would be helpful for Milton Keynes Council to have any authority over rail, for instance - there's just too little of it in the area, and you would, as @SargeNpton implies, end up with buffer stops at Woburn Sands. While I'm opposed to English regionalisation because it's just another wasteful layer of Government to politick about things at my cost. If anything I prefer to reduce that by moving to Unitary Authorities instead of Counties, as is generally happening, and I think most Parish Councils are extremely questionable as to their value.

This being the case I'm not sure about what sort of authority should control something like the Marston Vale Line. Perhaps it would make sense to have non-urban PTEs of some kind? After all these have existed for years, pre the Mayoral City Regions, in a situation where there wasn't one overriding Council structure controlling them, rather a set of Boroughs bought into them. So perhaps there should be something like a Home Counties Transport Agency, but not a full Council? I think it'd need to be something where you had a coordinated transport need rather than a political shape - so it's certainly make sense to have Aylesbury, MK, Bedford and Oxford in one agency despite it spanning many Councils.

And most importantly it should have control and oversight of ALL transport modes - road and rail. Integration is absolutely key.

 

[rapmastaj]

This being the case I'm not sure about what sort of authority should control something like the Marston Vale Line. Perhaps it would make sense to have non-urban PTEs of some kind? After all these have existed for years, pre the Mayoral City Regions, in a situation where there wasn't one overriding Council structure controlling them, rather a set of Boroughs bought into them. So perhaps there should be something like a Home Counties Transport Agency, but not a full Council? I think it'd need to be something where you had a coordinated transport need rather than a political shape - so it's certainly make sense to have Aylesbury, MK, Bedford and Oxford in one agency despite it spanning many Councils.

Yes the idea would be to have something like a network of PTEs covering the whole country. So you could have a Home Counties Transport Agency, a Bristol-based Transport Agency, another for Devon and Cornwall, and so on. Obviously, having buffer stops at county boundaries would be ridiculous, but that's not necessary - TfW already manages to run services in England perfectly well as far as I can tell.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2022 ==

And most importantly it should have control and oversight of ALL transport modes - road and rail. Integration is absolutely key.

Absolutely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2022 ==

So, instead of the whims of Westminster, you will replace it with the whims of the local mayors/transport bodies.

That may be the case, but I suspect that in most places, local leaders will be much more committed to supporting well-functioning public transport networks than national politicians are. That's what the evidence from Scotland, Wales, London and Merseyside points to.

To make sure this remains true, they should be held democratically accountable.

 

[Brubulus]

Looking at Cambridge, you've currently got a city region transport authority(GCP/Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CA) with no power over rail travel, leading to instances such as the cambourne to cambridge busway when EWR will provide a faster and more reliable transport link.

If the GCP actually cared about rail projects (which they don't seem to) they could save the money being spent on cambourne to cambridge, potentially even adding a station near Harston to improve local travel opportunities. I can also imagine a lot of the oppposition to it from that area dissapearing.

Then you've got CEST where it would probably cost the same to use the old rail alignment all the way to Haverhill but instead there will be a busway only taking people to the A11 because the GCP "doesn't do rail".

Looking at Merseyside, you have the problem where not enough 777s were ordered to do routes such as Omskirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan because they are Northern/DfT services outside the LCR and the LCR doesn't want to pay for that when they wouldn't get any extra from the government.

The best solution in my opinion is a national authority responsible for all transport (road and rail) but accountable to local authorities and with offices in each major UK city to try and ensure decisions are made with an adequate knowledge of each local area though nationally co-ordinated.

 

[JonathanH]

Looking at Merseyside, you have the problem where not enough 777s were ordered to do routes such as Omskirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan because they are Northern/DfT services outside the LCR and the LCR doesn't want to pay for that when they wouldn't get any extra from the government.

Not to mention lumps of concrete at Ormskirk and Kirkby that signify a different level of service either side. The purchase of 777s isn't the trigger that is going to get the service patterns changed. It could have been done any time in the last 40 years while there have been surplus 50x units and hasn't been.

 

[Brubulus]

Not to mention lumps of concrete at Ormskirk and Kirkby that signify a different level of service either side. The purchase of 777s isn't the trigger that is going to get the service patterns changed. It could have been done any time in the last 40 years while there have been surplus 50x units and hasn't been.

Its that they have batteries meaning that extra third rail electrification is not needed, which changes the equation massively on wether extending the service is viable

 

[A S Leib]

So perhaps there should be something like a Home Counties Transport Agency, but not a full Council? I think it'd need to be something where you had a coordinated transport need rather than a political shape - so it's certainly make sense to have Aylesbury, MK, Bedford and Oxford in one agency despite it spanning many Councils.

The current sub-national transport boundaries (eg Transport for the North covering Yorkshire / Humber, North East and North West, England's Economic Heartland of Herts, Cambs, Beds, Northants, Bucks, Oxons, Swindon) might work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The current sub-national transport boundaries (eg Transport for the North covering Yorkshire / Humber, North East and North West, England's Economic Heartland of Herts, Cambs, Beds, Northants, Bucks, Oxons, Swindon) might work.

Quite possibly, though I still think the urban authorities do need to be able to concentrate on their own cities. Most of the "let's integrate Merseyrail into random North West stuff" suggestions would ruin its simplicity, for instance.

TfN is a decent size to include TPE and Northern services plus relevant regional bus routes, though.

 

[SynthD]

Devolution of powers is all well and good, until the power at the top doesn’t like the decisions made. The Treasury is still in control.

 

[Richardr]

We don't currently have any sort of regional government and we don't have a consistent set of regional or local authorities - quite deliberately so to keep central control in England. Take

England's Economic Heartland of Herts, Cambs, Beds, Northants, Bucks, Oxons, Swindon

This is a mixture of unitary authorities and tiered authorities (i.e. all of county, city, parish councils where I live). Trains in Swindon have nothing to do with Bedford, but trains in London and Brighton, not included, do for example.

Without any sort of consistent democratic control, I can't see how this could work in any meaningful sense.

In our current political system, only in Wales and Scotland can "regional control" have any meaning, plus a selection of enclosed, or nearly enclosed, services in a few large regions, such as London.

 

[tbtc]

Feels like the problems of the last couple of years have convinced a few of the people who thought that handing control to (national) politicians was the answer to now decided that handing control to (regional) politicians might be better

The trouble is that England’s regions don’t have many powers - even “devolved” London with its Assembly and directly elected Mayor struggles to get monies out of Westminster to find a TfL that’s essential for the UK’s capital, so I don’t think that some Shire county will hold much sway, however much they might want to prioritise “people's health and wellbeing” or “preventing social exclusion”

I initially liked the OP’s apparent realism (when it came to accepting that rule by Westminster means rule by Tories most of the time, rather than the fictitious government beloved of many Posters who’ll apparently hand billions of pounds a year to a “proper railwayman” and leave them to get on with it without scrutiny/ interference)

But regional government isn’t fit for much, so I think that the noble ideas would only work if we had significant reform/ demolition, which doesn’t seem on the agenda any time soon

Otherwise we’d end up with a railway that saw a handful of favoured areas getting over-funded (e.g. Teesside right now) and impasses with various regional representatives from the “wrong” party (e.g. after seeing the problems that Khan has had, can you really see a Sunak allowing a Burnham/ Rothram a generously funded package?).

A Government like the current one would relish a showdown with a “looney left” Mayor (and their “unreasonable” demands) as a great distraction from various problems, just like they seem to relish a striking RMT

So, as I see it, regional control would only work once we’ve transformed England into a completely different country with layers of federalism and what not; anything in the meantime feels destined to fail

There’s also massive problems with places like Warrington with don’t belong in the “City” region of the big conurbation/s nearby (Buxton/ Glossop would be ruled by an East Midlands mayor/ assembly that didn’t care much about boosting the economy of Manchester).

You’d also have the consequences of some areas preferring to spend their money on separate light rail networks instead, since they’d properly control these (rather than seeing their local trains play second fiddle on buddy main lines). Be careful what you wish for

Essentially, England is a mess of different sized places and you’d need several years of structural reform before it was appropriate to devolve Rail

TfW already manages to run services in England perfectly well as far as I can tell

That’s not the impression I get, the “Borders” bit of the franchise seems the poor relation, with no accountability

 

[mike57]

I think regional control would introduce another set of problems similar to those currently facing the railways with TOCs and the DfT. By all means have local organisations for local services within metropolitian areas, but regional, rural and inter city services need to fall under one national umbrella and system. i.e. nationalisation

If the nationalisation resulted in an 'arms length' not for profit national organisation with subsidies agreed long term up front, and any financial surplus split evenly between the workforce, improvements and the treasury then I think the ensueing structure could be successful. You would save all the duplication resulting from multiple TOCs. Public preception would I think be better, simplified ticketing, no TOC specific tickets, or ticket acceptance issues. More flexibility as everything is owned and run one company. Leasing of new stock would continue, but old stock that is 'paid for' would just require care and maintenance. There would probably be the end of 'microfleets' beloved of enthusiasts but must be a nightmare in terms of deployment once no longer required for their original purpose.

Would the Unions accept that the changes would bring more security and stability, and therefore be more likely to reach agreement on the various issues, not just pay?

The senior managers directing operations and setting policy would have a free hand with in the limits set by subsidy and service requirement, rail has a huge potential to expand, if even 5% of the cars on our major motorways were converted to rail journeys that could result in a big increase in fare revenue. What it would need is good management that can recognise the difference between efficency and 'costing a pound to save a penny' and it would need to be a long term thing, longer than our typical political cycle of 4-5 years. Some of the current management decisions regarding things like route knowledge and multiple crew changes on a through service would probably rule out the people who promoted them from any involvement with the new organisation beyond sweeping floors.

Could politicians (of both parties) keep their grubby little hands off it long enough for it deliver results? If some improvements could be made quickly then public opinion might encourage them to do so even although it would probably go against their instinct. A quick win might be to simplify ticketing, keeping revenue neutral, and an end to issues surrounding ticket acceptance.

 

[Ken H]

Local control is all very well until trains and buses cross control area boundaries. Would West Yorkshire specify and pay for Leeds - Harrogate (Ripon) transport. Or services to Skipton. And even services going over the Pennines to Greater Manchester.
And we have the nonsense where the Welsh Assembly having control over a line (Manchester - Cardiff) that runs mainly in England. Where is the democratic oversight for people in Shropshire?
A joint committee would run into problems. A labour controlled metropolitan area may well try and bully a tory controlled shire county into spending more than they feel is justified or affordable to them. And who apportions costs? There was a tremdoins fight between West Midlands PTE and Staffs County Council over funding services beyond Blake Street, who paid for a crossover etc.

 

[SynthD]

(e.g. after seeing the problems that Khan has had, can you really see a Sunak allowing a Burnham/ Rothram a generously funded package?).

As I understand it, even the Labour governed regions outside of London received reasonable and non-partisan support during covid. London was the one picked for different treatment.

 

[Richardr]

If the nationalisation resulted in an 'arms length' not for profit national organisation with subsidies agreed long term up front, and any financial surplus split evenly between the workforce, improvements and the treasury then I think the ensueing structure could be successful.

What would such a "surplus" mean - just over subsidization, and so likely to mean a reduced subsidy next year?

Everywhere I've seen has a dash to spend such a "surplus" by the end of the financial year, as if they don't they won't get that much again.

No British government is likely to agree to a long term level of subsidy - not least in the current state of the economy.

 

[mike57]

No British government is likely to agree to a long term level of subsidy - not least in the current state of the economy.

Maybe not, but it would be the best way to get the railways onto a more secure footing, unfortunately the financial and political cycles are much shorter than the economic cycle for rolling stock and infrastructure. Its not uncommon for rolling stock to have a 40 year life span given mid life refurbishment, and infrastructure improvements will continue to deliver for longer than that.

The dash to spend etc is wrong at every level, it leads to waste, hence my thinking, pay some back to the treasury, carry some over to use for improvements, and pay the workforce (not just senior managers) a decent bonus. Unfortunately bean counters dont work this way, and look where it has got us...

If the government did commit to a subsidy for an extended period then some long term decisions could be taken and budgeted for, and I think given the right approach there would be some return to the treasury each year.

I just cant see either political party going for it, Labour have always been interventionist, and the Conservatives seem to be joining them. Yes there needs to be Parlimentary oversight to ensure the books are not being 'cooked' and to review overall performance, but not micromanagement. The stupid thing is even if they don't commit to the subsidy unless they are prepared to cut the network back they are going to be on the hook for the subsidy anyway, so better to admit it and get some longer term planning in place which would benefit everyone, workers, customers, taxpayers.

 

[Thirteen]

I'm not sure if spending on newer trains is a bad thing, you really don't a situation where passengers are using rolling stock which is on its last legs and not suitable in any way.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think slapping regional government onto the railway system is going to do much to improve matters.

I think we have to look more granular.

Divide the railway system into lines or compact groupings of lines, like it was a metro.
Organise it like that and we can get a handle on how to efficiently run the railway in terms of infrastructure, rolling stock and staffing.

Metro-isation has been the most successful policy in the UK historically, see no reason why it couldn't continue.

 

[RT4038]

I think regional control would introduce another set of problems similar to those currently facing the railways with TOCs and the DfT. By all means have local organisations for local services within metropolitian areas, but regional, rural and inter city services need to fall under one national umbrella and system. i.e. nationalisation

If the nationalisation resulted in an 'arms length' not for profit national organisation with subsidies agreed long term up front, and any financial surplus split evenly between the workforce, improvements and the treasury then I think the ensueing structure could be successful. You would save all the duplication resulting from multiple TOCs. Public preception would I think be better, simplified ticketing, no TOC specific tickets, or ticket acceptance issues. More flexibility as everything is owned and run one company. Leasing of new stock would continue, but old stock that is 'paid for' would just require care and maintenance. There would probably be the end of 'microfleets' beloved of enthusiasts but must be a nightmare in terms of deployment once no longer required for their original purpose.

Tickets specifying trains or routes are the only way the railways have in spreading demand - otherwise people will go for the most convenient and fastest, which will lead to overcrowding on the best trains, and under-utilisation and potential withdrawal of the others. Maybe an Inter City and Regional differentiation only would cater for most uses (with Inter City tickets available on Regional but not vice-versa) , and the cheaper fixed train tickets. Some Inter City trains would accept Regional tickets over part of their journey when they are performing Regional train duties.

The senior managers directing operations and setting policy would have a free hand with in the limits set by subsidy and service requirement,

I don't see how this can work any better. If, for example, the subsidy was set now at 2019 level, and the service requirement at 2019 level, how would the senior managers directing operations and setting policy be able to balance the books? Or will there be an annual negotiation of subsidy and a change to the service requirement to balance? It is highly unlikely that Govt is going to come to a subsidy amount to give them a free hand in Industrial Relations or Fare setting policy.

Could politicians (of both parties) keep their grubby little hands off it long enough for it deliver results? If some improvements could be made quickly then public opinion might encourage them to do so even although it would probably go against their instinct. A quick win might be to simplify ticketing, keeping revenue neutral, and an end to issues surrounding ticket acceptance.

But this is just never going to happen - the subsidy is public money being spent. Constituents are going to demand that their politician 'gets something done' about their local train service, even if it is not justified economically . These senior managers (whoever they may be) will not be able to easily brush such stuff off. It is what happens when things are subsidised. How would simplify ticketing be a quick win? A win to whom? Do you think that ticketing can be simplified, with increases for some to compensate for the decreases to others, and the senior managers directing operations and setting policy can just shrug off the politicians and their howling electorate, telling them to keep their grubby hands away?

If the government did commit to a subsidy for an extended period then some long term decisions could be taken and budgeted for, and I think given the right approach there would be some return to the treasury each year.

I just cant see either political party going for it, Labour have always been interventionist, and the Conservatives seem to be joining them. Yes there needs to be Parlimentary oversight to ensure the books are not being 'cooked' and to review overall performance, but not micromanagement.

It is highly unlikely that a subsidy would be committed to that gave these senior managers any leeway to have some spare to split amongst themselves, service improvements and the workforce, whilst having any kind of onerous service requirement. This is essentially what the franchises were and why the concept failed - hope you can grow revenue by some marketing tricks (within a straight jacket of some regulated fares), hope you can negotiate a reasonable deal with the workforce (who know they can push you), because you can't reduce the service to effect economies. These senior managers are going to be in the same position.

 

[mike57]

Do you think that ticketing can be simplified, with increases for some to compensate

I think fares should simply be broken down into 3 types, Anytime, any train any route, Standard, certain trains not available, show clearly in journey planners which trains are not available, and Advance, cheapest, valid on one service, where pricing would be dynamic. No TOC specific tickets, because there would be no TOCs selling tickets. Returns would be twice the single (I personally wouldnt bother with returns, you just buy two singles). You then dynamically price Advances to try and fill trains. 1st class where available at roughly 50%+ Anytime or Standard fare. 1st Class advances also dynamically priced to fill seats. I dont think the current Peak/Off peak model works well in a lot of cases. It also gives the passenger the chance to get the best deal for their situation, maybe an Advance outward and an Anytime or Standard for the return journey.

'Anytime' or what ever you decide to call it, may be the fastest trains on a route, with the slower ones being 'Standard' or it may be time based. I would see Anytime being typically 30% more than Standard although this could be tweaked to manage demand, and Advance being anything from just below Anytime fare on Anytime trains, right down to bargain basement to try and fill less busy services. If a train is really poorly loaded then dynamically price right down just before departure, for example £10 London - Edinburgh, better to have a 100 people paying £10 than a carriage and half of fresh air. I think having for example a £235 single standard class anytime fare for London to York is pointless, how many are actually sold? So set prices around what people actually currently pay with the current system as the starting point.

Rather than seasons sell 'books' of tickets for a given route, 10 tickets prepurchased say 10% off, 50 or 100 say 20% or 25% off.

In terms of clarity, we dont currently use train numbers in the UK but if we did the Axxxx trains are Anytime ticket trains, and everything else (Bxxxx?) are valid for standard ticket holders

Fares would be set in a way that makes split ticketing pointless. This doesn't preclude local offers like the Northern Duo, but base fares are clear and transparent. Overall fare level set to generate the same revenue for the same usage. There would be some winners and losers but I think you would end up something that was better than the mess that we currently have.

If you are travelling on an advance ticket and your train is cancelled or you miss a connection due to late running you are able to get the next train towards your destination. Equally if you have a standard ticket and next train is Anytime you are given a free upgrade.

In terms of the structure of the railways, I accept that my thoughts are radical, and there would be problems, a lot of the issues you mention may end up being deal breakers, but the current mess needs a major overhaul and trying get a long term plan (longer than the financial and political cycles) for the railways is essential to their survival.

Currently there doesn't seem to be plan beyond the next sound bite. I blame politicians for this, but thats a discussion outside this topic, for the record my view is 'A plague on both your houses' (Labour and Conservative)

 

[yorksrob]

That may be the case, but I suspect that in most places, local leaders will be much more committed to supporting well-functioning public transport networks than national politicians are. That's what the evidence from Scotland, Wales, London and Merseyside points to.

To make sure this remains true, they should be held democratically accountable.

I'm a great believer in devolution in general. In terms of the railway, there needs to be a double-lock over any potentially irreversible changes such as closures - i.e. both the local and national authority would have to agree to it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2022 ==

I think fares should simply be broken down into 3 types, Anytime, any train any route, Standard, certain trains not available, show clearly in journey planners which trains are not available, and Advance, cheapest, valid on one service, where pricing would be dynamic. No TOC specific tickets, because there would be no TOCs selling tickets. Returns would be twice the single (I personally wouldnt bother with returns, you just buy two singles). You then dynamically price Advances to try and fill trains. 1st class where available at roughly 50%+ Anytime or Standard fare. 1st Class advances also dynamically priced to fill seats. I dont think the current Peak/Off peak model works well in a lot of cases. It also gives the passenger the chance to get the best deal for their situation, maybe an Advance outward and an Anytime or Standard for the return journey.

'Anytime' or what ever you decide to call it, may be the fastest trains on a route, with the slower ones being 'Standard' or it may be time based. I would see Anytime being typically 30% more than Standard although this could be tweaked to manage demand, and Advance being anything from just below Anytime fare on Anytime trains, right down to bargain basement to try and fill less busy services. If a train is really poorly loaded then dynamically price right down just before departure, for example £10 London - Edinburgh, better to have a 100 people paying £10 than a carriage and half of fresh air. I think having for example a £235 single standard class anytime fare for London to York is pointless, how many are actually sold? So set prices around what people actually currently pay with the current system as the starting point.

Rather than seasons sell 'books' of tickets for a given route, 10 tickets prepurchased say 10% off, 50 or 100 say 20% or 25% off.

In terms of clarity, we dont currently use train numbers in the UK but if we did the Axxxx trains are Anytime ticket trains, and everything else (Bxxxx?) are valid for standard ticket holders

Fares would be set in a way that makes split ticketing pointless. This doesn't preclude local offers like the Northern Duo, but base fares are clear and transparent. Overall fare level set to generate the same revenue for the same usage. There would be some winners and losers but I think you would end up something that was better than the mess that we currently have.

If you are travelling on an advance ticket and your train is cancelled or you miss a connection due to late running you are able to get the next train towards your destination. Equally if you have a standard ticket and next train is Anytime you are given a free upgrade.

In terms of the structure of the railways, I accept that my thoughts are radical, and there would be problems, a lot of the issues you mention may end up being deal breakers, but the current mess needs a major overhaul and trying get a long term plan (longer than the financial and political cycles) for the railways is essential to their survival.

Currently there doesn't seem to be plan beyond the next sound bite. I blame politicians for this, but thats a discussion outside this topic, for the record my view is 'A plague on both your houses' (Labour and Conservative)

Every short/medium term journey should have cheapday off peak tickets.

Every medium/long term journey should have a period return option.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Devolution of powers is all well and good, until the power at the top doesn’t like the decisions made. The Treasury is still in control.

Absolutely.

 

[tbtc]

Fares would be set in a way that makes split ticketing pointless. This doesn't preclude local offers like the Northern Duo, but base fares are clear and transparent

Sounds good, but how do you handle a PTE offering cheaper fares within their boundaries?

That can sometimes mean that an “outsider” is better to buy a ticket to the boundary station and then a subsidised PTE-set ticket for travel inside the area concerned

If your idea is that we effectively have all fares at the same (lower) rate that the PTE currently subside then that’s great but is going to be very expensive to implement… however it also means that PTEs essentially no longer have power to set rail fares (if all tickets must cost the same “price per mile” equivalent)?

So would Central Government now pay for the fare subsidy that the PTE used to contribute? That would free up a lot of money for PTEs (at a big cost to national taxpayers). Or would PTEs lose a chunk of their budget, which restricts their flexibility (e.g. at the moment the PTE has the freedom to remove some Rail subsidy if they urgently need to fund things like school buses)

If anything, this is removing “Regional control” and handing more powers to central government

I just can’t see how best to square the circle of “simple nationwide fares that remove the need for split tickets” and
“The freedom for local control over cheap tickets within that area” - I wouldn’t want PTEs to lose their powers (but it’d be unfair to expect them to pay for people who live outside their boundaries)

Same with some “Rovers” or heavily subsidised lines (e.g. the Settle & Carlisle passenger numbers are boosted slightly by cheaper “via Appleby” tickets for Anglo-Scottish journeys, but if there’s no incentive to go via this slower route then people will take the faster ECML/ WCML instead)

 

[mike57]

That can sometimes mean that an “outsider” is better to buy a ticket to the boundary station and then a subsidised PTE-set ticket for travel inside the area concerned

But if the fare from A to the boundary station is £5 and the fare from the boundary station to B is £2 PTE subsidised fare then the A to B fare is £7. If the PTE reduce their subsidy and it goes up to £3 then the fare A to B becomes £8. PTE can do what they like, A to B fare reflect PTE part of journey

e.g. the Settle & Carlisle passenger numbers are boosted slightly by cheaper “via Appleby” tickets for Anglo-Scottish journeys,

You would retain routing, to promote/shift load to cheaper routes. Not via London is probably the prime example, its just the complexity of tickets over a given route that would be simplified

 

[NoRoute]

I think the major error goes right back to the 1940s when the failing private railway companies were not only nationalised, but then merged into a single monopoly railway. Monopolies are almost always and everywhere a bad thing, they eliminate competition, stifle innovation, allow poor performance and poor efficiency by virtue of the lack of alternatives and removal of comparators against which they can be measured. The theoretical benefits of economies of scale from a single provider pretty much never materialise, being outweighed by the numerous disadvantages.

That monopoly of railway infrastructure provision has persisted through British Rail, Railtrack and now Network Rail. First thing I would do is end it, and break up Network Rail in several independent organisations responsible for the major routes, a set of 'Rail Cos'. Giving each one full autonomy over everything on their route, engineering, rules, investment, staff, the lot.

The rail franchising system is now little more than a facade, so take back operation and merge this into the Rail Cos, establishing them as vertically integrated publicly owned and run operators of both the infrastructure and the passenger services.

Then after that has bedded in, over time introduce a process where all new rail projects are open to competition from the different public operators, competing to deliver rail service outcomes. For example, if services to the north need improving, let the Midland Rail Co compete against the LNER Co for that service, competing for which can provide the infrastructure and run the service at lowest cost.

 

[SargeNpton]

That monopoly of railway infrastructure provision has persisted through British Rail, Railtrack and now Network Rail. First thing I would do is end it, and break up Network Rail in several independent organisations responsible for the major routes, a set of 'Rail Cos'. Giving each one full autonomy over everything on their route, engineering, rules, investment, staff, the lot.

Instead of one national monopoly on infrastructure, that just creates a number of regional infrastructure monopolies Each then needing to sources its own pool of expert signallers, civil engineers, track machines, etc. And again, creating problems about which of those Rail Cos takes the lead when it comes to route upgrades, signalling and electrification schemes where a route crosses a boundary between two of them.

 

[NoRoute]

Instead of one national monopoly on infrastructure, that just creates a number of regional infrastructure monopolies Each then needing to sources its own pool of expert signallers, civil engineers, track machines, etc. And again, creating problems about which of those Rail Cos takes the lead when it comes to route upgrades, signalling and electrification schemes where a route crosses a boundary between two of them.

Firstly they are not total monopolies, there's quite a few cities which are already served by multiple routes or were previously and have the potential to be again, so there can be competition for some passenger markets.

As for the resourcing argument well logically that applies to almost every industry, every business and public service activity. And for many years pre-1980s some whole industries were monopolies, but any economies and savings from being a single, monopoly provider were overwhelmed by the disadvantages, costs and inefficiencies of an entrenched monopoly. The performance of those monopolies was generally very poor, the theoretical efficienfy benefits were outweighed by the actual performance problems.

 

[yorksrob]

Sectorisation under an arms length BR board.

 

[SargeNpton]

Sectorisation under an arms length BR board.

What a novel idea. Surprised that nobody has thought of it before. Imagine that, the operating and infrastructure side of things working on behalf of the commercial side.