More change for Network Rail

[lineclear]

Regarding the suggestion of TOCs running the whole railway, do we really want a TOC, which will only be around for a few years, making long term engineering decisions, such as on S&C renewals which may last fifty years?

 

[EM2]

I think NR should be split up and employees and assets absorbed by TOCs. This way TOC is responsible for track and signalling maintenance and this will provide an incentive for sorting out things quickly when things go wrong as they would no longer get compensated for failure.

And what about all the other stuff that NR do that isn't about track and signalling?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Regarding the suggestion of TOCs running the whole railway, do we really want a TOC, which will only be around for a few years, making long term engineering decisions, such as on S&C renewals which may last fifty years?

By "TOC" I mean the integrated railway business as a whole, like the sectors were (in the end, not at the beginning).
The DfT aim in inventing TOCs like LNER, integrated with NR "Eastern", appears to be to make these sustainable longer term, not just for a 7-year stretch before the next lot comes in.
The "private involvement" in the integrated TOCs might not be bus bandits but the signalling and infrastructure majors, backed by pension scheme capital (similar to HS1).

As for delay attribution, the BR Regions were quite capable of shifting blame elsewhere, eg: "This train has been delayed on the Western Region" was a regular announcement at Birmingham New St.

 

[68000]

and how do you do that? The infrastructure is owned by the nation, the TOCs run a franchise. Are you suggesting that NR is broken up and 'sold' to the franchisee? The TOCs do not actually own any physical assets

 

[JohnR]

Spoken like a true Labour (Scottish branch office) man, John!

Glad to see you agree. As otherwise you'd have attacked the argument, rather than use an ad hom like that?

 

[al78]

The TOCs do not actually own any physical assets

Do you know of a link which explains (in laymans terms) how the rail network actually operates? The idea that the companies don't own any physical assets is not intuitive, and is likely lost on the majority.

 

[thecrofter]

Do you know of a link which explains (in laymans terms) how the rail network actually operates? The idea that the companies don't own any physical assets is not intuitive, and is likely lost on the majority.

https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/r...ions/how-the-rail-industry-works-an-overview/

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

and how do you do that? The infrastructure is owned by the nation, the TOCs run a franchise. Are you suggesting that NR is broken up and 'sold' to the franchisee? The TOCs do not actually own any physical assets

That's the current model, up for review.
According to DfT musings, the "East Coast Partnership" is intended to be some blended version of LNER (TOC) and NR LNE Route (infrastructure).
With private finance involved, somehow (not necessarily at the TOC end, or in a short-term franchise).
NR has already invited expressions of interest from infrastructure suppliers (Alstom, Siemens, Hitachi, Amey, Balfour Beatty etc), eg to fund resignalling of the ECML.
Prior to this, in somewhat similar vein, HS1 capacity has been leased long-term to a Canadian pension fund.
Keith Williams is tasked to come up with a structural model that is sustainable - these are the straws in the wind.

 

[Meerkat]

How do you devolve System Operator? It is either the system operator or it isn’t....

Though shouldn’t ORR be the system operator?

 

[E6007]

How do you devolve System Operator? It is either the system operator or it isn’t....

Though shouldn’t ORR be the system operator?

Why? Difficult to be an operator and regulator!

 

[The Planner]

System Operator is just a catch all title, nothing more. It covers train planning, strategic planning etc...

 

[SC318250]

Will Milton Keynes be responsible still for charter planning or will this go to the regions?

 

[Meerkat]

Doesn’t train planning need to be at top level due to the trains crossing boundaries?
In terms of system operator/regulator boundary I was thinking in terms of path allocation type stuff.

 

[al78]

https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/r...ions/how-the-rail-industry-works-an-overview/

Thanks, it looks interesting and informative. It says the trains themselves are owned by a rolling stock company and are leased to the rail operators. This suggests to me that when people ask why they can't put more trains on routes that are overcrowded, it is not that simple as that, even if there is spare capacity on the route, there might not be any more trains available to lease. Is this correct?

If the trains are not owned by a rail company and are owned by a separate company, how is it that the rail companies can put their livery on the trains? I would have thought that if the trains are leased, they would all be some neutral livery, but evidently there is some flexibility for rail companies to make alterations.

 

[Greg Read]

Thanks, it looks interesting and informative. It says the trains themselves are owned by a rolling stock company and are leased to the rail operators. This suggests to me that when people ask why they can't put more trains on routes that are overcrowded, it is not that simple as that, even if there is spare capacity on the route, there might not be any more trains available to lease. Is this correct?

If the trains are not owned by a rail company and are owned by a separate company, how is it that the rail companies can put their livery on the trains? I would have thought that if the trains are leased, they would all be some neutral livery, but evidently there is some flexibility for rail companies to make alterations.

TOC's 'own' no rolling stock, it's all leased from the ROSCO's, as for NR being part of a TOC, would this not be a bad thing for passengers, if you have multiple TOCs running over a section of line, the Major player will insist his train gets preference, and of course freight would hardly get a look in ! NR being separate from the TOC avoids this.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thanks, it looks interesting and informative. It says the trains themselves are owned by a rolling stock company and are leased to the rail operators. This suggests to me that when people ask why they can't put more trains on routes that are overcrowded, it is not that simple as that, even if there is spare capacity on the route, there might not be any more trains available to lease. Is this correct?

In most cases, it hardly matters whether trains are leased, or owned by the TOCs - it's simply a case of there not being sufficient suitable rolling stock available. Around two thirds of the lines in this country (by mileage) are unelectrified, and there is a huge shortage of diesel units. So it hardly matters what the ownership structure is - TOCs can't magic trains out of thin air! The best they can do is to reduce the length of other services, but it is always a trade-off, and there isn't one perfect solution.

Now, there are some cases where there really are spare trains lying about, and it's a question of financials. Back around 10-15 years ago, a lot of the leases agreed then (which are still in effect) were quite expensive. The TOCs also have to pay more for each mile they run the train - for instance, West Midlands Trains' Class 350/2 units. This is because, in that particular case, the manufacturer maintains the trains (so it's what's known as a wet lease as opposed to a dry lease). WMT quite often run shorter services than they otherwise could, simply because it would be cost prohibitive for them to run extra 350/2s. The market for rolling stock is very different nowadays, with a much larger choice of leasing companies and manufacturers, so there is a lot more competition and this issue wouldn't arise on a newly bought train.

If the trains are not owned by a rail company and are owned by a separate company, how is it that the rail companies can put their livery on the trains? I would have thought that if the trains are leased, they would all be some neutral livery, but evidently there is some flexibility for rail companies to make alterations.

It's simply a term of the lease that has been agreed, that the lessor (the TOC) can livery the train. In most cases, they have to remove at least the branded part before returning the trains (in theory) at the end of the lease.

 

[al78]

In most cases, it hardly matters whether trains are leased, or owned by the TOCs - it's simply a case of there not being sufficient suitable rolling stock available. Around two thirds of the lines in this country (by mileage) are unelectrified, and there is a huge shortage of diesel units. So it hardly matters what the ownership structure is - TOCs can't magic trains out of thin air! The best they can do is to reduce the length of other services, but it is always a trade-off, and there isn't one perfect solution.

Thanks for the info. If there is a shortage of a particular type of unit, can't more units be ordered and manufactured?

 

[The Planner]

Will Milton Keynes be responsible still for charter planning or will this go to the regions?

Doesn’t train planning need to be at top level due to the trains crossing boundaries?
In terms of system operator/regulator boundary I was thinking in terms of path allocation type stuff.

It will stay in MK, there were pushes to split it back out again but I doubt anyone wanted a re-run of 2010 and the subsequent years.

 

[Ken H]

when you reorganise, you bleed. Gerard Feinnes

 

[306024]

Doesn’t train planning need to be at top level due to the trains crossing boundaries?
In terms of system operator/regulator boundary I was thinking in terms of path allocation type stuff.

Well that was part of the argument for centralising everything in Milton Keynes. Back in BR there were basically 6 timetable offices, Glasgow, Crewe, York, Swindon, Waterloo and Liverpool St (an outbase of York). One of the key difficulties was co-ordinating handover times at the boundary, especially if a long distance train passed more than one boundary.

However with modern technology and communications this should be less if a problem. Many schedules do not pass a boundary (the vast majority I’d suggest), so by centralising in MK a lot of local expertise was lost in an attempt to provide this national co-ordination.

 

[306024]

when you reorganise, you bleed. Gerard Feinnes

Absolutely. The skill is to stop the bleeding quickly, otherwise the patient dies.

 

[Ken H]

Thanks for the info. If there is a shortage of a particular type of unit, can't more units be ordered and manufactured?

the franchise agreements between the DfT and the TOC's will specify the level of service and by implication the number of units to provide that. If more units are needed then that will be an increase in costs to the TOC, and they will say to the DfT, if you want us to run more trains, that means more subsidy. If the DfT say no, then they have to do with what they have.

 

[Llanigraham]

If the trains are not owned by a rail company and are owned by a separate company, how is it that the rail companies can put their livery on the trains? I would have thought that if the trains are leased, they would all be some neutral livery, but evidently there is some flexibility for rail companies to make alterations.

Because the terms in the lease allow them to do so, just like they is done for thousands of lorries, vans, buses and cars that are leased. And one of the reasons vinyl wrapping has become so popular on commercial vehicles.
(An example is all the Network Rail vehicles; these are leased but are sign written)

 

[Highlandspring]

when you reorganise, you bleed. Gerard Feinnes

Except he never said it. He attributes that quote in his book to an unnamed speaker at a management course he attended.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thanks for the info. If there is a shortage of a particular type of unit, can't more units be ordered and manufactured?

Many are on order, but they take years to arrive and be tested.

 

[Bald Rick]

However with modern technology and communications this should be less if a problem. Many schedules do not pass a boundary (the vast majority I’d suggest), so by centralising in MK a lot of local expertise was lost in an attempt to provide this national co-ordination.

Unquestionably. However it has been several years now, and the experience has been built back up again, and most of it lives near MK. Granted it’s not so easy to provide the specific local experience, but it is now easier to do that remotely than it once was. Were capacity planning to be broken up to the regions, I suggest that we would simply have a re-run of the expertise loss etc that we had on centralisation.

 

[The Planner]

Unquestionably. However it has been several years now, and the experience has been built back up again,

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s certainly better than it was!

 

[al78]

the franchise agreements between the DfT and the TOC's will specify the level of service and by implication the number of units to provide that. If more units are needed then that will be an increase in costs to the TOC, and they will say to the DfT, if you want us to run more trains, that means more subsidy. If the DfT say no, then they have to do with what they have.

Ah, ok, it makes sense now.

 

[al78]

Because the terms in the lease allow them to do so, just like they is done for thousands of lorries, vans, buses and cars that are leased. And one of the reasons vinyl wrapping has become so popular on commercial vehicles.
(An example is all the Network Rail vehicles; these are leased but are sign written)

It hadn't occurred to me that lorries, vans and buses were leased, I thought haulage/delivery companies and bus companies owned their fleet of vehicles. Thanks for filling a gap in my knowledge.