Is it the end for GBR??

[Nicholas Lewis]

The i have an item this morning suggesting that the Williams Shapps plan is going to be scrapped.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/t...looks-set-to-be-scrapped-insiders-say-1902082

Grant Shapps’s flagship Great British Railways project is in danger of being scrapped, according to insiders working on it.

The former transport secretary, who is currently at odds with new Prime Minister Liz Truss, had led plans to replace rail franchising and modernise ticketing – but those working on the project now believe it will be axed.

A Whitehall source told i that work had slowed down significantly since Ms Truss entered No 10, leading to fears over its future amid a bonfire of other Boris Johnson-era policies.

Another claimed the project had been all but halted, with the anticipation within the Department for Transport being that it will be canned.

Given they extended AWC for six months suggest a holding operation is in play while Anne Marie Trevalyn gets her feet under the table.

Anyhow there are questions to the DfT team on Thursday in the House of Commons so given speculation has appeared in railway press as well we can expect questions from the opposition that may give us a clue to direction of travel.

 

[Mikey C]

I imagine it will be parked rather than "definitively" scrapped along with a number of Boris era policies, either because Truss doesn't like them, or simply due to lack of time/political will, without the cabinet minister driving them.

You can see that with Raab's Bill of Right, or Dorries wanting to privatise Channel 4, both policies likely to wither away.

 

[Thirteen]

I imagine it will be parked rather than "definitively" scrapped along with a number of Boris era policies, either because Truss doesn't like them, or simply due to lack of time/political will, without the cabinet minister driving them.

You can see that with Raab's Bill of Right, or Dorries wanting to privatise Channel 4, both policies likely to wither away.

I think lack of political will/time is probably the main reason GBR will be put on hold because you do need everyone cooperating in order for it to succeed.

 

[Davester50]

Don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but will be funny to see the narcissist Shapps' report being binned none the less.

 

[Horizon22]

Considering how many people have suggested “ah hopefully something GBR will resolve” or “I imagine GBR will look into this”, this is going to kick a number of medium-term (and even short-term) initiatives into the long grass if true.

Hundreds of people have been seconded to GBRTT (Great British Railways Transition Team) so I do wonder what will come of their work.

 

[43066]

Considering how many people have suggested “ah hopefully something GBR will resolve” or “I imagine GBR will look into this”, this is going to kick a number of medium-term (and even short-term) initiatives into the long grass if true.

Hundreds of people have been seconded to GBRTT (Great British Railways Transition Team) so I do wonder what will come of their work.

Perhaps. Albeit the best thing that could happen now would be for the treasury to stop micro managing the industry via the DfT.

 

[Scott1]

The only part of GB Railways I thought would have value was simplication and standardiation of ticketing. Other than that it seems a lot of work for relatively small gains, such as branding.

The messroom romour mill has it as being quietly killed off for the most part.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Shapps appeared to be waiting to launch a new Railways Act about now, to change the railway structure and bring in GBR in 2024.
If parliamentary priorities dictate against a Railways Act before the next election, they'll have to operate within the current structures.
They can do what they like with gov-owned Network Rail, but the TOCs are hidebound by the 1993 franchise/privatisation legislation.
Having all TOCs on short-term direct awards, or in endless OLR status, is the antithesis of what is supposed to happen.
Even Wales and Scotland are limited in what they can do with their TOCs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even Wales and Scotland are limited in what they can do with their TOCs.

I still think full devolution would be the way to go with those. If the Liverpool City Region wants it, why would actual countries not?

Then....Rail England.

 

[jon0844]

I really hope so. Having the railways run for private profit is madness, but if the last few years have proven anything, it's that central government micromanaging it doesn't work either, - mainly because those in control of government departments are not generally appointed on the basis of their competence in that area, and generally seem more worried about playing politics instead of running their department effectively and efficiently and planning for the long term.

There's a balance to be found, as private companies with a profit incentive can try and grow the railway and promote more leisure travel. More bums on seats equals more profit potential.

We can already see the DfT wanting to cut services left, right and centre. Sure, there is a downturn in peak usage but there's also an incentive to cut, cut, cut because commuters will pay regardless. If you run fewer trains, you also need fewer drivers, and with fewer ticket sales you can cut ticket offices etc.

GBRail was nothing more than a supposed Brexit benefit; look at us, free of the EU, able to do what we want - and cover everything with the union flag. As others have said, it was quite possible to just call it British Rail and use the original logo (no need to pay someone to change the angles slightly). Find "National Rail"; Replace "British Rail"; done!!

That said, I am for the TfL/GTR style management contract model - but always feared that the Government would always attack the railway first when times were hard. I always said 'be careful what you wish for' and it seems those who were concerned had good reason.

The only part of GB Railways I thought would have value was simplication and standardiation of ticketing. Other than that it seems a lot of work for relatively small gains, such as branding.

ATOC could and should have been in charge of smart ticketing (ITSO, e-tickets etc) from the start. And as for branding, it's funny how we're starting to see the new signs going up without any consistency, and at a time when there's no money to do much of it anyway.

 

[py_megapixel]

There's a balance to be found, as private companies with a profit incentive can try and grow the railway and promote more leisure travel. More bums on seats equals more profit potential.

Often, though, they didn't do this.

Where there was genuine competition for passengers, the "lower tier" TOCs which offered a slower or less comfortable service did - and still do - offer cheaper fares in an effort to undercut the others, but I think the jury's out as to whether that actually attracted new passengers or just redistributed them to use the local trains more. Of course there was Virgin with its flashy branding and advertising which made a genuine attempt to attract passengers - but they mainly served journeys to central London, where train modal share is comparatively high anyway. And then there was Great Western Railway, with its "Five" advertising campaign, did its best to polish the turd that is the IEP.

But plenty of TOCs saw it as easier not to bother. Some of those complacent TOCs managed to run a competent service (East Midlands Trains, South West Trains and Serco-Abellio Northern); some did not (Connex springs to mind, as does Arriva CrossCountry). And the fragmentation of the industry will have made it more expensive and less efficient to run, while the lack of any sort of long-term strategy for rolling stock - the DfT preferring to make its mind up at the start of every new franchise based on what it felt like at the time - has lead to nonsense like the scrapping of relatively modern EMUs while DMUs from the 80s and 90s still rattle and groan their way around large swathes of the country.

It may have been a flawed model, but a lot of the mess was of course the fault of the SRA and the DfT managing it poorly. This is the basis of my suggestion that the railways should not be managed directly by central government. A system as complex and delicate as a railway network simply can't be run competently without a solid plan for the long term which one can know will be followed with reasonable certainty, which is precluded by ever-changing politics and frequent government "U-turns".

Arguably the biggest success has been open access on the East Coast. The "not primarily abstractive" test may be silly if the aim is to encourage head-to-head competition, but it has actually done something better than this - provided direct London services to destinations that were under-served by the "big trains", and in so doing I imagine they have genuinely made rail more competitive and increased passenger numbers. Of course, those are entirely private operations with no government interference at all - but that couldn't possibly work for an entire network; there are too many services which are necessary but not profitable enough. And there's no reason an open access operator couldn't coexist with a national one, if it has a unique value proposition, much as Flixtrain (high-speed train travel at bus prices) and Nightjet (sleeper trains) do in Germany.

I do wonder whether franchising would have worked better if increasing passenger numbers had actually been considered as a main objective, and targets for this had been written into the contracts. (Maybe they were, and they just weren't optimistic enough - I'm not sure!)

Summary of this post: you're right in so far as it's a delicate balance, and I think there is more to consider than just "potential profit incentivises growth".

 

[Railman]

I suppose it will save having to count the votes, to see who won the competition to host the new headquarters.
That said if it is cancelled whats next?? maybe leave it a year and announce a new review. Possibly cancel HS2 north of Crewe as a "Public spending cut back"

 

[doa46231]

What a ridiculous statement.

Might be worth reading what Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, has recently said.
His view is that within 20 years there will be no need for any public transport: train or bus.
Everyone will have access to self drive electric cars and taxis.
I kid you not. But I doubt he is the only one with these opinions in the tory Party.

 

[Cardiff123]

I still think full devolution would be the way to go with those. If the Liverpool City Region wants it, why would actual countries not?

Then....Rail England.

I agree entirely. But I don't even think Labour will consider a name such as "Rail England". Starmer is intent on wrapping Labour in the Union Jack just as much as the Tories are, look at the name for the publicly owned energy company he came up with - "Great British Energy"
We might get "GB Rail" or "British Railways" as a name from Labour, but I don't think it'll be England specific. And it's just as likely to be wrapped in a Union Jack.

Strengthening of devolution is without a doubt needed going forward, with full devolution of track and train for Scotland & Wales.

 

[43066]

Might be worth reading what Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, has recently said.
His view is that within 20 years there will be no need for any public transport: train or bus.
Everyone will have access to self drive electric cars and taxis.
I kid you not. But I doubt he is the only one with these opinions in the tory Party.

I think people were saying that 20 years ago .

I suspect in 20 years we will still have a railway, still with Victorian semaphores in places.

On the roads things will be largely as now, but with a large majority of pure electric vehicles on the road rather than ICE/hybrid. We still won’t have widespread self driving, other than perhaps convoys on motorways. The green lobby will be even more influential, congestion will still be an issue and therefore exactly the same drivers for public transport as today will exist - likely more so with population growth.

EDIT: I just googled Houchen. None too bright and just another nail in the coffin of the Conservative party, is my initial impression!

 

[yorksrob]

Might be worth reading what Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, has recently said.
His view is that within 20 years there will be no need for any public transport: train or bus.
Everyone will have access to self drive electric cars and taxis.
I kid you not. But I doubt he is the only one with these opinions in the tory Party.

I could imagine that that might work in a big country designed around the car, but not so much on a crowded island.

 

[Mikey C]

And a 70mph journey (max) on the Motorway doesn't compete on speed with HS2, never mind current 125 mph services anyway.

 

[jon0844]

I suppose it will save having to count the votes, to see who won the competition to host the new headquarters.
That said if it is cancelled whats next?? maybe leave it a year and announce a new review. Possibly cancel HS2 north of Crewe as a "Public spending cut back"

Stop it at Old Oak Common for even bigger savings!

 

[Jozhua]

That's one of the few elements of hope with this government.

My only hope is that they cease to be in government for any more than 100 days!

Except Northern are under the same model and they're barely better than they were in their privatised state.

Northern has the unfortunate role of both being in the North, and operating a lot of very useful local and regional services that many hard working people rely on. Therefore, it must be stopped from functioning correctly at all costs.

They accidentally ordered half the number of carriages they needed for the 195 fleet...no idea how that happened!

The railway is incapable of adapting to any change in circumstances in a reasonable timeframe.

It can't even manage to complete a move to regional control centres before the 2070s, and that is something that will have been common in many systems abroad for a century by then. Hell BNSF has been running its continent-spanning system primarily from one building since the 90s!

If the railway can't manage a reorganisation in a decade and can't manage ETCS in 25 years, then it is lost and we might as well stop throwing good money away trying to preserve the (bulk of the) railway into the electric vehicle era.

The issue is government not ever putting forward funding to do anything and micromanaging the hell out of everything.

If they had a consistent goal instead of changing their mind every five minutes, we might have actually made some progress by now!

There are a lot of good people at the various TOCs, Network Rail and even within the DfT. The issue is that they have to deal with clueless ministers who think trains still run on steam and getting on a 'stagecoach' refers to a horse drawn carriage.

Doesn't help that some cabinet ministers look like haunted Victorian children who were primarily raised by ghosts.

Perhaps. Albeit the best thing that could happen now would be for the treasury to stop micro managing the industry via the DfT.

Yes

Might be worth reading what Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, has recently said.
His view is that within 20 years there will be no need for any public transport: train or bus.
Everyone will have access to self drive electric cars and taxis.
I kid you not. But I doubt he is the only one with these opinions in the tory Party.

In the future we won't need public transport because everyone will fly around using the power of fairy dust!

In fact, they should rip all the rail out of central London and have everyone get into the city in self driving taxis. Because it's self driving, congestion is #cancelled

 

[jon0844]

I don't even think we'll have fully level 5 autonomous vehicles driving us around in 30 or 40 years. Absolutely yes to vehicles able to take over control in controlled environments, but not residential streets - and not without anyone in the car (this silly idea of the roads full of empty cars going to pick people up, roaming around like robot vacuum cleaners) or someone in the car who could be sleeping.

We will still have buses and trains!

 

[thomalex]

I wouldn't be so sure GBR will be binned and that will be it. There's been a lot money and effort put into it and Labour will be campaigning on nationalising the railway at the next election something which polls well with the public. GBR gives that impression without it being nationalisation per say.

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't be so sure GBR will be binned and that will be it. There's been a lot money and effort put into it and Labour will be campaigning on nationalising the railway at the next election something which polls well with the public. GBR gives that impression without it being nationalisation per say.

I do have to wonder what Labour would do, when they did nothing during their 13 years in power last time.

 

[Thirteen]

I think GBR will evolve into a mix of nationalisation and rail devolution. Indeed, I could see most metro services being devolved to TfL in London for example.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I think GBR will evolve into a mix of nationalisation and rail devolution. Indeed, I could see most metro services being devolved to TfL in London for example.

That used to be Khan’s big dream, but he seems to have gone quiet on that front - along with many of his “if I stay as mayor I will…” promises.

 

[43066]

I wouldn't be so sure GBR will be binned and that will be it. There's been a lot money and effort put into it and Labour will be campaigning on nationalising the railway at the next election something which polls well with the public. GBR gives that impression without it being nationalisation per say.

That’s probably the most likely hope for it to continue (not that I hope for it to continue!). Starmer is clearly lukewarm at best on the idea and doesn’t have a plan other than a vague “commitment to nationalisation” and, compared to his predecessor, is more interested in pragmatism than ideology.

I do have to wonder what Labour would do, when they did nothing during their 13 years in power last time.

Likely nothing more substantive than GBR, due to the cost/scale of the project for limited political benefit. Plus the inconvenient truth that British Rail was pretty rubbish when it was privatised and if that is recreated at vast expense, along with the same old shortcomings and many of the current problems inevitably continuing, people will want to know why.

Nationalisation makes most sense politically as perpetual “jam tomorrow” that politicians can talk about but never actually have to deliver on (see also Scottish independence.).

That used to be Khan’s big dream, but he seems to have gone quiet on that front - along with many of his “if I stay as mayor I will…” promises.

It’s just hot air and empire building from Khan/Labour, which of course is why the mayoralty was created in the first place: to be a high profile Labour coloured thorn in the side of future Tory governments. Like most of London’s other problems, the mayor takes credit for transport projects when they go well, but blames central government when they don’t. He doesn’t have to pay for them either way.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Then....Rail England.

That's not going to work while (UK) DfT owns most cross-border services.
In reverse, TfW serves significant chunks of England.
NR is not devolved either (more in Scotland than in Wales).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not going to work while (UK) DfT owns most cross-border services.
In reverse, TfW serves significant chunks of England.

Why not? International trains operate all over Europe.

NR is not devolved either (more in Scotland than in Wales).

You'll note I suggested that.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It’s just hot air and empire building from Khan/Labour, which of course is why the mayoralty was created in the first place: to be a high profile Labour coloured thorn in the side of future Tory governments. Like most of London’s other problems, the mayor takes credit for transport projects when they go well, but blames central government when they don’t. He doesn’t have to pay for them either way.

Maybe but at least they deliver a higher frequency more reliable service on London Overground operated routes and guess what they are well used all day long

 

[domcoop7]

I'm surprised people are so against GB Railways. Of all the reasons for being against it, the logo and typeface is the most ridiculous. But if it doesn't go ahead, what do people think will happen?

If / when Starmer gets in in 2024, there's not likely to be a Railways Act for at least the first three years. And if you think a promise to renationalise will mean anything by the time we get to 2028, I've got a double decker High Speed tunnel into Waterloo* to sell you!

In October 1996 (Labour Party Conference) a certain Tony Blair said that if Labour were elected:-

We will give Britain the modern, integrated transport network, built in partnership between public and private finance, and restoring a unified system of railways with a publicly-owned, publicly-accountable British Rail at its core. (Applause) Good for Britain and good for business.

What actually happened is that four years after they were elected, they created the Strategic Rail Authority and embraced privatisation.

So we'll have the same system for at least the next six years, and if the Truss government decide to let franchises again, it could be many, many years before anything changes (as there is a zero percent chance that even if Starmer does go ahead with his pledge to renationalise - which is unlikely - he'll terminate any contracts before expiry). If the Great British Energy company he has proposed gives an indication of Starmerism (and I'll bet most people haven't read the small print, and don't realise that it isn't actually intended to be an energy company at all, but act as a conduit for private energy generators), any "renationalisation" will have heavy private sector involvement. Probably a Merseyrail / TfL Rail model.

As for further devolution of the railway, my view is it's a ludicrous idea. The railway is a national system that ought to serve national interests. Silo-ing it into different Scottish, Welsh, large City Regions, and what's left won't do anyone any favours. If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If a regional or Welsh / Scottish agency takes over the railway in their areas, it's inevitable that even more priority will be given to passengers over freight, to commuter service over long distance and to local services over regional or national. Services will be artificially curtailed at administrative boundaries, local services will end up only accepting local tickets, maintenance standards will be changed from one area to the next, in city regions there may even be cut backs on maintenance as other demands on the budget will take priority, and possibly much of the city region networks will be taken out altogether from the national network (perhaps as tram / train, or a la Merseyrail). And the question then is why? In any event I can't see Liz Truss's government going down that route (although given her absolute uselessness, who knows). Keir Starmer would probably go for it, and if he needs to rely on SNP / Lib Dem votes it's almost a certainty.

GB Railways was probably the best chance we've had in a long time to get a structural change to the way the railway is run, and if it is indeed binned, I wouldn't hold out much hope of anything better for the future. I'm genuinely upset at the prospect of it not going ahead.

(* this was one of the proposals flying around after the Strategic Rail Authority took over and invited bids for 25 year franchises).

 

[Jozhua]

I'm surprised people are so against GB Railways. Of all the reasons for being against it, the logo and typeface is the most ridiculous. But if it doesn't go ahead, what do people think will happen?

If / when Starmer gets in in 2024, there's not likely to be a Railways Act for at least the first three years. And if you think a promise to renationalise will mean anything by the time we get to 2028, I've got a double decker High Speed tunnel into Waterloo* to sell you!

In October 1996 (Labour Party Conference) a certain Tony Blair said that if Labour were elected:-



What actually happened is that four years after they were elected, they created the Strategic Rail Authority and embraced privatisation.

So we'll have the same system for at least the next six years, and if the Truss government decide to let franchises again, it could be many, many years before anything changes (as there is a zero percent chance that even if Starmer does go ahead with his pledge to renationalise - which is unlikely - he'll terminate any contracts before expiry). If the Great British Energy company he has proposed gives an indication of Starmerism (and I'll bet most people haven't read the small print, and don't realise that it isn't actually intended to be an energy company at all, but act as a conduit for private energy generators), any "renationalisation" will have heavy private sector involvement. Probably a Merseyrail / TfL Rail model.

As for further devolution of the railway, my view is it's a ludicrous idea. The railway is a national system that ought to serve national interests. Silo-ing it into different Scottish, Welsh, large City Regions, and what's left won't do anyone any favours. If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If a regional or Welsh / Scottish agency takes over the railway in their areas, it's inevitable that even more priority will be given to passengers over freight, to commuter service over long distance and to local services over regional or national. Services will be artificially curtailed at administrative boundaries, local services will end up only accepting local tickets, maintenance standards will be changed from one area to the next, in city regions there may even be cut backs on maintenance as other demands on the budget will take priority, and possibly much of the city region networks will be taken out altogether from the national network (perhaps as tram / train, or a la Merseyrail). And the question then is why? In any event I can't see Liz Truss's government going down that route (although given her absolute uselessness, who knows). Keir Starmer would probably go for it, and if he needs to rely on SNP / Lib Dem votes it's almost a certainty.

GB Railways was probably the best chance we've had in a long time to get a structural change to the way the railway is run, and if it is indeed binned, I wouldn't hold out much hope of anything better for the future. I'm genuinely upset at the prospect of it not going ahead.

(* this was one of the proposals flying around after the Strategic Rail Authority took over and invited bids for 25 year franchises).

To be honest, I would take the Gareth Dennis position on nationalisation, which is that a slower transition is probably good, just to avoid unnecessary disruption for the most part.

In terms of your points on regional control, I would really disagree with the sentiment. A lot of politicians for the big city regions or nations are generally more pragmatic than you think. Northern cities tend to support infrastructure investments in other areas, because they see the knock on effects of delayed intercity services due to various bottlenecks. (E.g. Leeds sees delayed TPE train from Liverpool because of bottleneck in Manchester)

Devolution doesn't mean that regions can do whatever they want, and any kind of deal can ensure through ticketing and access for IC and freight services.

The issue is, the current system has a lot of people who are very out of touch signing off on the final decisions. Regional control seems to help rebalance that. Ridership numbers on Merseyrail, London Overground seem to confirm this!