Network Rail in line to take control of trains in major overhaul

[Highlandspring]

I am not sure NR is competent enough to take on more responsibility though. Maybe TOCs should be give the responsibility of track and signal maintenance.

Yikes!

 

[hwl]

Yikes!

Seconded.

The whole point of this initiative is so NR can dissect the bids fully so all the timetabling type or assuming unfunded /unauthorised infrastructure issues don't occur i.e. virtually eliminating non compliant or unrealistic bids so they are all implementable rather than works of fiction.
It already started to happen

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Seconded.

The whole point of this initiative is so NR can dissect the bids fully so all the timetabling type or assuming unfunded /unauthorised infrastructure issues don't occur i.e. virtually eliminating non compliant or unrealistic bids so they are all implementable rather than works of fiction.
It already started to happen

Network Rail timetabling is one of the most dire sections of the organisation. Much of the national output in that field is being carried by extremely experienced staff in the TOC and FOC offices.

If anything, the engineering side is its strong suit.

 

[hwl]

Network Rail timetabling is one of the most dire sections of the organisation. Much of the national output in that field is being carried by extremely experienced staff in the TOC and FOC offices.

If anything, the engineering side is its strong suit.

The problem is the bid team and consultant timetabling is often very problematic...

 

[The Planner]

Bid team issues are because of the time constraints meaning they cut corners, give them more time and the bids would be better. Whilst it is all well and good to scrutinise the readiness of projects from our side before implementing a timetable, if someone decides it happens then its going to happen. The issue is people being empowered and being comfortable enough to say "we are in the proverbial and the infrastructure/rolling stock/etc isn't going to be ready for the timetable change" without feeling like they need to update their CV or Linkedin profile.

 

[Surreytraveller]

As someone who used trains under BR, I can tell you that it was not as perfect as some wide eyes people will tell you.

If BR had been given the money these private companies have been given, we'd now have a railway that is the envy of the world.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'given'. State funding or support of private companies is not permitted under competition rules.

 

[route:oxford]

If BR had been given the money these private companies have been given, we'd now have a railway that is the envy of the world.

They wouldn't have been though.

We've had 10 years of austerity in the public sector. The only thing that has protected investment in rail infrastructure is long term contracts with the private sector.

 

[hwl]

Bid team issues are because of the time constraints meaning they cut corners, give them more time and the bids would be better. Whilst it is all well and good to scrutinise the readiness of projects from our side before implementing a timetable, if someone decides it happens then its going to happen. The issue is people being empowered and being comfortable enough to say "we are in the proverbial and the infrastructure/rolling stock/etc isn't going to be ready for the timetable change" without feeling like they need to update their CV or Linkedin profile.

short listed for post of the year award!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

If BR had been given the money these private companies have been given, we'd now have a railway that is the envy of the world.

That’s an exceptionally simplistic viewpoint. Almost equivalent to the £350m/week claim which conveniently omitted any simultaneous payment in the other direction!

 

[Class 170101]

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Interviews/andrew-haines-network-rail-franchises

Andrew Haines, CE of Network Rail, tells BBC News his organisation could issue future rail franchises

By Ewan Quayle, Rail Technology Magazine Reporter

Andrew Haines, the Chief Executive of Network Rail, has told the Today programme on Radio 4's BBC’s flagship news programme that he would not rule out his organisation issuing future rail franchises

He made the admission on the station’s most popular programme Nick Robinson today (Monday) during a discussion about the Williams Rail Review into the future structure of the whole rail industry.

Mr Haines said: “The current structure of the railways is effectively outgrown. It was introduced at a time of decline in the railways, 25 years ago, but we’ve seen a doubling of passenger numbers since that time.

“The big challenge for the railways at the moment is about culminating growth, and whilst we’ve been focussing on investment, we’ve lost sight of who we’re doing for.

“I don’t really care who’s in charge as long as it’s easier to do the improvement that are needed.”

READ MORE: New Network Rail boss tells MPs he will put passengers’ interests first

He was questioned about the role of network Rail following the Williams Rail Review and asked if the organisation should be responsible for the issuing of future rail franchises.

He added: “If it meant taking things away from network rail that we currently do, I would be up for that. I think it’s completely wrong to say ‘we need change’ but it must start somewhere else.

“There’s a balance to be struck. The amount of public money going into the railway means there’s always going to be government involvement and I think it’s important that they really do set the context, the framework, and the overarching public policy.

“What we’ve got to do is take the day-to-day operation away from government and from Whitehall, whilst leaving them with the big policy choices.

“I think we can do a better job on costs. One of the reasons costs have got out of control is because suddenly the floodgates opened on investment programmes.”

“The supply chain wasn’t mature; our specification wasn’t robust and we hadn’t built our capability. We’re now delivering electrification projects at a fraction of the price that we were five years ago because we’ve built that capability and it would be good to maintain it.”

Still to be convinced that NR should be making decisions beyond maintaining and enhancing the railway.

 

[Cardiff123]

IF what the Times article is saying really is what Williams is going to propose, it strikes me as a compromise way of bringing a greater degree of centralisation to the rail industry while preserving privatised passenger (and freight) operations. At least NR, unlike the DfT, is run by railwaymen (or persons). Perhaps the hope is that with Andrew Haines at the helm of NR it would be more effective and efficient in a new enlarged role.

Although Williams has said that nothing is ruled out, we can guess that Grayling wouldn't support a recommendation to renationalise. He'll be hoping for something that addresses some of the widespread concerns about the current set-up, that offers a hope of a less tightly-specified passenger system in the future, and that maintains private operations. To achieve that he'd be quite prepared to support a substantial downgrading of the DfT's role. There have been reports that he has on occasion pushed for his own ideas against the advice of senior officials, so there may not be much love lost between him and them.

No one needs to worry about what Grayling thinks, he'll be long gone from the DfT by the time the Williams review needs to be acted upon.

 

[Dr Hoo]

They wouldn't have been though.

We've had 10 years of austerity in the public sector. The only thing that has protected investment in rail infrastructure is long term contracts with the private sector.

How does this fit with five-year Control Periods (CPs) and Statements of Funds Available that seem to be disconnected from the franchising (and, latterly, largely Direct Award) process? When Chris Grayling announced £47,900,000,000 for Network Rail during CP6, in October 2017 how much of that was already contracted?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Intercity, Gatwick Express and Network Southeast ran at a profit in the days of Bob Reid No 1.
That equates to
ECML WCML GWML, SWR, SE, GN and Thameslink, Midland Mainline, Southern and Anglian mainlines.
The decision to abandon sectors and go with franchising was an expensive mistake.

Whilst the sector era of BR saw some great achievements - it was a fantastic time to be a manager in terms of trust and empowerment - the financial results were not quite so rosy. From Terry Gourvish's official history of BR the results for Sir Bob Reid's final year (1989/90) stated in 1993/94 prices (around half of current prices) showed a surplus for InterCity of £67million. This was based on some questionable cost allocations for routes outside the core main lines seen as part of NSE or Provincial. Network SouthEast was still losing £150m (and Provincial £588m). So a net passenger result requiring over a billion pounds of subsidy at current (2018/19) prices.

 

[cactustwirly]

It was pretty rubbish in many ways, but it also had a fraction (in real terms) of the subsidy of today. If we paid today's subsidy to BR I don't doubt we'd have something much more like, say, SBB, or maybe DB.

It's dangerous to say nationalisation would be better, you could end up with a monolith like SNCF!
DB are better than the UK ToCs, but punctuality isn't one of them!
ÖBB are without a doubt the best ToC IMO, but is that because the network is simpler?

I think Trenitalia are good as well.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It's dangerous to say nationalisation would be better, you could end up with a monolith like SNCF!
DB are better than the UK ToCs, but punctuality isn't one of them!
ÖBB are without a doubt the best ToC IMO, but is that because the network is simpler?

I think Trenitalia are good as well.

The OBB network is anything but simple , and views on Trenitalia are dependant on where you are. !.......(this could run and run !)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The OBB network is anything but simple , and views on Trenitalia are dependant on where you are. !.......(this could run and run !)

Trenitalia are a bit like SNCF in that they slightly neglect their slower services in favour of their high-speed ones, but nowhere near as bad.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Trenitalia are a bit like SNCF in that they slightly neglect their slower services in favour of their high-speed ones, but nowhere near as bad.

Some of the local Milan slow services (and no doubt elsewhere) are woeful , - HS services outstanding. I have not seen such vandalised stock on the local trains for many years - but the RER is very far from perfect from an ambience (let alone feeling safe) point of view. However - OT.

 

[kevconnor]

Late to the party but this is the times article.

Network Rail could be given new powers over trains in the biggest overhaul of the railways for 25 years.


Network Rail could be given new powers over trains in the biggest overhaul of the railways for 25 years.

The Times has learnt that a government review is considering handing greater control to Network Rail, which currently operates the tracks, in an attempt to improve performance.

The government-owned infrastructure group would get the power to specify and award contracts to private train operators to run passenger services, bringing the operation of the tracks and trains closer together.

Rail industry sources said that the initiative was being closely considered by Keith Williams, the former chief executive of British Airways, who is leading the review.

The plan will prove controversial after criticism of Network Rail’s performance, including last year’s chaotic introduction of new timetables and delays to upgrades such as the Great Western line, which has tripled in cost.


Mr Williams is said to favour large-scale reforms of the existing system in which trains are run by private companies while the tracks are operated by the state. Network Rail has already overhauled its structure in the past year under the leadership of Andrew Haines, the new chief executive, who has pledged to “put passengers first”.

Speaking earlier this year, Mr Williams said that the current system “cannot continue in the way that it is today”, adding: “It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers or farepayers.”



The review was ordered after the timetabling fiasco last summer when the introduction of ambitious new schedules led to the meltdown of services in the north and southeast of England. An inquiry blamed collective failure, including poor preparation by train companies, late infrastructure work by Network Rail and lack of oversight by the Department for Transport.

It exposed inefficiencies in the current system, which dates back to privatisation of the railways in the mid-90s. Labour has proposed complete renationalisation if it wins power.

Mr Williams is considering a less extreme option that would retain private train operations but hand direct oversight to Network Rail.

Under the reforms, Network Rail would be given powers to specify and award franchises. It would be able to set out the targets that train operators have to hit as well as specifying the number of services being run.

The powers over franchises would be devolved to Network Rail’s five regions to promote greater local control. The regions are Scotland, Wales and southwest England, the northwest and western England, the northeast and eastern England and southern England. There are almost 20 rail franchises and Network Rail has said that its new structure will “better align with train operators and franchises”. The power over franchises currently lies with the DfT.

Industry sources are sceptical of the plan. One train company insider said: “Network Rail has overspent and cocked up yet it could be getting the golden goose. It’s a reward for failure.”

A DfT spokesman said: “The department is driving forward the most significant change in the rail sector in 25 years, with the root-and-branch Williams Review focused on putting passengers at the heart of our railway.”

It said it planned to publish a white paper this year and bring in the reforms from next year.

 

[CNash]

Would it be cynical to suggest that the government would want to hand responsibility for franchises over to NR in order to give themselves a "buffer" for when the franchises (or the franchise renewal process) attract negative media attention? They can point at NR and say "nothing to do with us, it's those eejits at NR who are to blame"...

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That’s an exceptionally simplistic viewpoint. Almost equivalent to the £350m/week claim which conveniently omitted any simultaneous payment in the other direction!

In what way is it simplistic?

 

[Dr Hoo]

In what way is it simplistic?

Well, the original comment lacked any figures to start with; let alone properly referenced ones and some detailed analysis.

 

[yorksrob]

As someone who used trains under BR, I can tell you that it was not as perfect as some wide eyes people will tell you.

As someone who also used trains under BR, I can confirm that it was also not as rubbish as the privatisers would have you believe. But that is another matter.

In terms of this proposal, one of my biggest issues with the original privatisation is the way in which TOC's, and consequently passengers end up paying leasing charges for rolling stock that has already been paid for many times over. Would this proposal go back to a situation where NR buys the trains, then when their value has been depreciated, they can just be operated at a cost that is much more reflective of their value ? This would be a benefit.

 

[RLBH]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'given'. State funding or support of private companies is not permitted under competition rules.

Private companies compete for a contract to operate trains on a particular route in exchange for the right to keep the money that that route earns. Since most of the railway runs at a loss, the government pays them to provide the service. That's how the privatised railway works.

No, it's not quite the same as just giving each company a big lump of money. But the overall effect is similar to having one publicly-owned company that gets an annual lump sum.

In terms of this proposal, one of my biggest issues with the original privatisation is the way in which TOC's, and consequently passengers end up paying leasing charges for rolling stock that has already been paid for many times over.

I've never quite understood why the leasing system was set up the way it was. I can understand why having TOCs own their rolling stock was undesirable, but the ROSCOs seem like a really clumsy way of avoiding it that stifles the ability of TOCs to access rolling stock.

 

[yorksrob]

Private companies compete for a contract to operate trains on a particular route in exchange for the right to keep the money that that route earns. Since most of the railway runs at a loss, the government pays them to provide the service. That's how the privatised railway works.

No, it's not quite the same as just giving each company a big lump of money. But the overall effect is similar to having one publicly-owned company that gets an annual lump sum.

I've never quite understood why the leasing system was set up the way it was. I can understand why having TOCs own their rolling stock was undesirable, but the ROSCOs seem like a really clumsy way of avoiding it that stifles the ability of TOCs to access rolling stock.

Yes, I would have thought that some sort of regional public body would have been best placed.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Well, the original comment lacked any figures to start with; let alone properly referenced ones and some detailed analysis.

That doesn't make it simplistic. It means it's unsubstantiated.

 

[matt_world2004]

. Maybe TOCs should be give the responsibility of track and signal maintenance.

Considering TOCs cannot be bothered to invest in driver training programmes because the Return on investment outlasts the franchise length. You expect them to invest in infrastructure upgrades where the return on investment can be upto a century

 

[cactustwirly]

The OBB network is anything but simple , and views on Trenitalia are dependant on where you are. !.......(this could run and run !)

I know, but it's knowhere near as complex as the UK or DB network

 

[matt_world2004]

Why not have PTEs award franchises for services that are designed for commuting to and within their area of power, with the highest performing franchises between a group of PTEs get awarded the intercity contracts for travel between those PTEs.

 

[GrimShady]

Intercity, Gatwick Express and Network Southeast ran at a profit in the days of Bob Reid No 1.
That equates to
ECML WCML GWML, SWR, SE, GN and Thameslink, Midland Mainline, Southern and Anglian mainlines.
The decision to abandon sectors and go with franchising was an expensive mistake.

Agreed