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

[Dr Hoo]

Agreed

Notwithstanding that the original post was demonstrably wrong and referred to a time when BR was still absorbing subsidy of around a billion pounds per year (across all passenger activities and at current values) for moving less than half the number of travellers that the system does today.

 

[GrimShady]

Notwithstanding that the original post was demonstrably wrong and referred to a time when BR was still absorbing subsidy of around a billion pounds per year (across all passenger activities and at current values) for moving less than half the number of travellers that the system does today.

No it wasn't wrong at all. Sectorisation was a success.

 

[yorksrob]

Think how much passenger increase and revenue growth could be achieved now, if train operators could increase capacity by running longer trains when required. If leasing costs didn't have to be paid on "paid for" stock, it might make more of a business case for keeping some older rolling stock to strengthen busy services.

Question is, will this proposal help to achieve this, or would NR just become another ROSCO charging for paid for stock.

Also there are other obstacles such as arbitrary withdrawal dates, need to lengthen platforms etc.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

The only "gift" of money was to Railtrack/Network Rail for its 5-year Control Period plans.
That was at commercial rates and NR is still paying the interest on the accumulated £50 billion debt.
All the rolling stock has been purchased with private money.

You might ask why nationalised Network Rail bungled the WCRM and electrification projects, making us rather less than the envy of the world.
All of Europe's railways are planning to contract out rail services over the next few years.

 

[F Great Eastern]

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?

The thing with ÖBB and transport in Vienna in particular is the whole package, from excellent customer service that treats it's customer like peoples rather than just numbers, good quality of rolling stock which is not done on the cheap, excellent quality of information at stations. Plenty of very willing staff, well up-kept stations etc.

The 'We appreciate order and organisation just as much as you do!' statement on all of their house rules posters is bore out in reality rather than just being marketing speak, it's actually true and even the way that poster is written and the friendly tone used rather than the overly formal strict tones we see here, illustrates what OBB do so well.

However there are bad examples of nationalised railways also, PKP comes to mind, which may not seem so bad at first glance but have fundamental problems with focusing on passengers, whilst doing their best to make life very difficult any smaller operator who dares to innovate. There were a few arms of PKP that were spun off with their own management and did some good things, but the parent company quickly strangled them and went back to old ways.

 

[yorksrob]

You might ask why nationalised Network Rail bungled the WCRM and electrification projects, making us rather less than the envy of the world.
All of Europe's railways are planning to contract out rail services over the next few years.

Might one answer that it was because so much electrification expertise was lost after the bungled privatisation (the first twenty years of which saw barely any new electrification, lest we forget), so NR more or less had to start from scratch ?

Yes, one might.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No it wasn't wrong at all. Sectorisation was a success.

I'm told the final stage of sectorisation in 1993 (eliminating the regions, allocating the full costs to the sectors) was not a success.
It was overtaken by the privatisation process so did not get any scrutiny.
Sectorisation also gave us 3 independent passenger sectors with different fares policies, rolling stock and operations.
It was the precursor of franchises which split things down another level.
So not very different in principle.
It might have worked well for inter-city, also maybe for NSE (with DOO), but it never got to grips with regional and its huge losses.
Franchises at least give us a close look at a specific service group every 7 years or so, for investment decisions.
BR just had its favourite projects and hardly bothered with the rest.
The public and local bodies hardly got a look in.
No delay repay, either...

 

[GrimShady]

I'm told the final stage of sectorisation in 1993 (eliminating the regions, allocating the full costs to the sectors) was not a success.
It was overtaken by the privatisation process so did not get any scrutiny.
Sectorisation also gave us 3 independent passenger sectors with different fares policies, rolling stock and operations.
It was the precursor of franchises which split things down another level.
So not very different in principle.
It might have worked well for inter-city, also maybe for NSE (with DOO), but it never got to grips with regional and its huge losses.
Franchises at least give us a close look at a specific service group every 7 years or so, for investment decisions.
BR just had its favourite projects and hardly bothered with the rest.
The public and local bodies hardly got a look in.
No delay repay, either...

It worked very well for everyone including Rail Freight. Regional was always going to be loss making but managed to successfully reduce its costs by a huge factor with Pacers and Sprinters.

How many years did the private sector operate without delay repay?

There wasn't any Advances either.

None of that means sectorisation wasn't a very good thing. Privatisation has been a disaster. Different fares, massive amounts of incompatible rolling stock, different policies and now it's collapsing on its rear end.

 

[coppercapped]

Think how much passenger increase and revenue growth could be achieved now, if train operators could increase capacity by running longer trains when required. If leasing costs didn't have to be paid on "paid for" stock, it might make more of a business case for keeping some older rolling stock to strengthen busy services.

Question is, will this proposal help to achieve this, or would NR just become another ROSCO charging for paid for stock.

Also there are other obstacles such as arbitrary withdrawal dates, need to lengthen platforms etc.

It appears to me that you don't understand the way that leasing costs come together.

Broadly the leasing bill for rolling stock (and aeroplanes and cars and anything else) breaks down into the component to amortise the capital invested (the bit that you keep on banging on about) and the part to cover on-going operation of the asset. This latter part covers all or part of maintenance, engineering costs of modifications needed because of service experience or legal changes (think accessible toilets) or because some re-engineering is needed because parts become obsolescent. And so on. An asset is written off over the expected 'book life' of the asset, for pressurised jet airliners it's around 24-25 years and for railway rolling stock about 30. Computers have about a three year 'book life' and cars about five.

So even if the asset was free, you would still have to pay to use it.

The capital stock inherited from BR still had value - that is roughly anything less than 30 years old. This rolling stock had been paid for by the taxpayer and the receipts from the sale of the ROSCOs went some way to covering this expenditure. The charges the ROSCOs levy for this ex-BR stock in part covers their capital expenditure. Anyway there now is comparatively little ex-BR rolling stock still running - there was a great cull of the geriatric trains when all the slam door stock was replaced.

The capital cost of all rolling stock ordered by the ROSCOs since then has been paid for by the private sector. For these assets normal accounting rules apply. The railway is no different - it does not, and should not, get preferential treatment simply because its a railway.

 

[coppercapped]

It worked very well for everyone. Regional was always going to be loss making but managed to successfully reduce its costs by a huge factor and with Pacers and Sprinters.

How many years did the private sector operate without delay repay.

There wasn't any Advances either.

None of that means sectorisation wasn't a very good thing. Privatisation has been a disaster. Different fares, massive amounts of incompatible rolling stock, different policies and now it's collapsing on its rear end.

BR started incompatible couplers. BSI for the Sprinters and Pacers and the Tightlock for electric stock.

Tut, tut! Selective memory again...

 

[GrimShady]

BR started incompatible couplers. BSI for the Sprinters and Pacers and the Tightlock for electric stock.

Tut, tut! Selective memory again...

Not in the slightest! Don't think I said they were all compatible.

Compare the number of different couplers in use during BR compared to now. And let's not forget the modern TMS which is about as compatible OS2.

 

[yorksrob]

It appears to me that you don't understand the way that leasing costs come together.

Broadly the leasing bill for rolling stock (and aeroplanes and cars and anything else) breaks down into the component to amortise the capital invested (the bit that you keep on banging on about) and the part to cover on-going operation of the asset. This latter part covers all or part of maintenance, engineering costs of modifications needed because of service experience or legal changes (think accessible toilets) or because some re-engineering is needed because parts become obsolescent. And so on. An asset is written off over the expected 'book life' of the asset, for pressurised jet airliners it's around 24-25 years and for railway rolling stock about 30. Computers have about a three year 'book life' and cars about five.

So even if the asset was free, you would still have to pay to use it.

The capital stock inherited from BR still had value - that is roughly anything less than 30 years old. This rolling stock had been paid for by the taxpayer and the receipts from the sale of the ROSCOs went some way to covering this expenditure. The charges the ROSCOs levy for this ex-BR stock in part covers their capital expenditure. Anyway there now is comparatively little ex-BR rolling stock still running - there was a great cull of the geriatric trains when all the slam door stock was replaced.

The capital cost of all rolling stock ordered by the ROSCOs since then has been paid for by the private sector. For these assets normal accounting rules apply. The railway is no different - it does not, and should not, get preferential treatment simply because its a railway.

That's interesting.

Is it not a fact that the majority of maintenance costs are paid for by the train company, hence why they are expected to return assets in maintained condition ? If the ROSCO's were paying for this, wouldn't it be easier for them to return the assets in any old condition, then let the ROSCO's fix them ? Also, in the case of Northern for example, is it not Northern who are expected to refurbish their trains as part of their franchise bid ? I wasn't aware that they were allowed to invoice these costs to the ROSCO's.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It appears to me that you don't understand the way that leasing costs come together.

Broadly the leasing bill for rolling stock (and aeroplanes and cars and anything else) breaks down into the component to amortise the capital invested (the bit that you keep on banging on about) and the part to cover on-going operation of the asset. This latter part covers all or part of maintenance, engineering costs of modifications needed because of service experience or legal changes (think accessible toilets) or because some re-engineering is needed because parts become obsolescent. And so on. An asset is written off over the expected 'book life' of the asset, for pressurised jet airliners it's around 24-25 years and for railway rolling stock about 30. Computers have about a three year 'book life' and cars about five.

So even if the asset was free, you would still have to pay to use it.

The capital stock inherited from BR still had value - that is roughly anything less than 30 years old. This rolling stock had been paid for by the taxpayer and the receipts from the sale of the ROSCOs went some way to covering this expenditure. The charges the ROSCOs levy for this ex-BR stock in part covers their capital expenditure. Anyway there now is comparatively little ex-BR rolling stock still running - there was a great cull of the geriatric trains when all the slam door stock was replaced.

The capital cost of all rolling stock ordered by the ROSCOs since then has been paid for by the private sector. For these assets normal accounting rules apply. The railway is no different - it does not, and should not, get preferential treatment simply because its a railway.

That's interesting. So you seem to be arguing that the costs of hiring rolling stock from the ROSCO's would be expected to fairly represent the actual cost of building and maintaining the rolling stock (plus a small profit margin). Set against that is the public perception that ROSCO's are making abnormally high profits which could've been invested back in the railway. Do you happen to know whether that's the case or not? (It's a genuine question - I don't know the answer).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I'm told the final stage of sectorisation in 1993 (eliminating the regions, allocating the full costs to the sectors) was not a success.
It was overtaken by the privatisation process so did not get any scrutiny.
Sectorisation also gave us 3 independent passenger sectors with different fares policies, rolling stock and operations.
It was the precursor of franchises which split things down another level.
So not very different in principle.
It might have worked well for inter-city, also maybe for NSE (with DOO), but it never got to grips with regional and its huge losses.
Franchises at least give us a close look at a specific service group every 7 years or so, for investment decisions.
BR just had its favourite projects and hardly bothered with the rest.
The public and local bodies hardly got a look in.
No delay repay, either...

As this attack continues - at least BR actually knew (pretty well) what it's costs were for both infrastructure and operations. Pretty well down to the "actual" costs of a directly maintained piece of loss making Regional Railways as well as (say) Charing Cross to Dartford via Sidcup. Efficient cost control on infrastructure was lost with the 1994 act , and especially so once hundreds of infrastracuture contracts and sub contracts came into being. It is now a total "jam spread" of dividing an aggregate figure by a number of train miles.

I do not recall BR , either , charging for station calls by train length (encouraging short formations) , let alone for the use of off peak rolling stock. (ditto) - however swathes of "contract managers" since then have reaped a living by spreadsheet tapping and so on.

By the way , as a final rant - I came across on another forum a 6 month plan to build the entire (and now out of action almost) , Fords Bridgend branch line. Amazingly there was not a single consultant involved all local staff of all departments guaranteeing a June start and a January finish. Including crossing the A48 and signalling changes. No Grip process or "stage gate reviews" or even "Delivery Boards" .....

Yes - we really could match that now ....(rolls eyes)

 

[Bletchleyite]

None of that means sectorisation wasn't a very good thing. Privatisation has been a disaster. Different fares, massive amounts of incompatible rolling stock, different policies and now it's collapsing on its rear end.

Franchising in its current form (which is nothing like it was originally) is collapsing on its rear end. Not privatisation as a wider concept.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Franchising in its current form (which is nothing like it was originally) is collapsing on its rear end. Not privatisation as a wider concept.

No "has collapsed" - see Wolmar and his documented "what is the point of franchising" ? ....

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Not in the slightest! Don't think I said they were all compatible.

Compare the number of different couplers in use during BR compared to now. And let's not forget the modern TMS which is about as compatible OS2.

Amazingly - there were coupling adaptors (mushroom head ones for example to couple a 455 to a 4EPB and more) , stored as part of the emergency on board equipment. Amazingly , staff were trained to use them. Not so now regrettably. We will send a BRUFF or a fitter from miles away. (subject to contract)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Amazingly - there were coupling adaptors (mushroom head ones for example to couple a 455 to a 4EPB and more) , stored as part of the emergency on board equipment. Amazingly , staff were trained to use them. Not so now regrettably. We will send a BRUFF or a fitter from miles away. (subject to contract)

In BR days most or all 153s had a loco-to-BSI adapter left lying around in the cycle space. It was a fairly hefty bit of kit too.

 

[HH]

It worked very well for everyone including Rail Freight. Regional was always going to be loss making but managed to successfully reduce its costs by a huge factor with Pacers and Sprinters.

This is a very selective view of the state of BR. Red Star was haemorrhaging money; NSE was very poor on most fronts; InterCity was, in reality, heavily subsidised, as it didn't pick up its fair share of costs. If Freight made money, it would have been news to BRB. Despite changes to the culture, safety wasn't great. Staff were poorly paid, and acted accordingly.

You have some very rosy shades.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In BR days most or all 153s had a loco-to-BSI adapter left lying around in the cycle space. It was a fairly hefty bit of kit too.

There was a hernia inducing issue of fitting the things - especially the 125 ones ! , but there were plans and training. Like spare screw couplings of various kinds.

 

[HH]

As this attack continues - at least BR actually knew (pretty well) what it's costs were for both infrastructure and operations. Pretty well down to the "actual" costs of a directly maintained piece of loss making Regional Railways as well as (say) Charing Cross to Dartford via Sidcup. Efficient cost control on infrastructure was lost with the 1994 act , and especially so once hundreds of infrastracuture contracts and sub contracts came into being. It is now a total "jam spread" of dividing an aggregate figure by a number of train miles.

I can tell that you have no Financial training.

If you believe that it is possible to accurately calculate the actual cost of one route on the UK network, you don't know much about costing.

 

[coppercapped]

That's interesting.

Is it not a fact that the majority of maintenance costs are paid for by the train company, hence why they are expected to return assets in maintained condition ? If the ROSCO's were paying for this, wouldn't it be easier for them to return the assets in any old condition, then let the ROSCO's fix them ? Also, in the case of Northern for example, is it not Northern who are expected to refurbish their trains as part of their franchise bid ? I wasn't aware that they were allowed to invoice these costs to the ROSCO's.

You have to distinguish between running maintenance costs - wear and tear, brake pad replacement, regular engine overhauls and so on and the cost of ‘mid-life’ updates which require significant engineering input, time out of service and so no income for the ROSCO for that period. I should have more carefully distinguished between the two.

Generally the TOC pays for day-to-day maintenance - whether by doing it itself, for example Southwestern Railway at Wimbledon depot or by contracting a company - often the trains’ manufacturer - to do it. South Western Trains does this as well - it contracts Siemens to maintain the Desiro fleet at Northam. As I understand the lease conditions the asset has to be handed back in a state which reflects it use - obviously it won’t be in exactly the same state as at the start of the lease as it will have had a few miles more on the clock! Any things added by the TOC during the lease and not paid for directly by the ROSCO - I understand that some CCTV fittings in some trains were done by the TOC - should be removed. Hence the removal of sticky labels giving the TOC’s identity before handback.

There comes a time, however, when more serious work is needed requiring significant engineering design input and approvals work. This could be corrosion repairs, re-engining of HST power cars or re-engineering old coaches - think sliding doors and controlled emission toilets in Mark III coaches. Such exercises cost significant amounts of money which is spent by the ROSCO in the hope it can be recovered later, the leasing fees then have to cover these expenses even if the coach is already over 30 years old and is outside its book life. So lease payments to amortise such work over the, say, ten years remaining physical life of the asset, might still be significant.

If the publicity states that, say, Northern is spending £x million in refurbishment one has to be careful what is entailed. If the work is effectively only cosmetic, seat covers, paint, etc., then it is possible that the TOC has paid directly. If it is anything more significant, new seat frames or tables, WiFi, power sockets, new PIS, then it is likely the ROSCO will do it, because of the necessary engineering design and approvals work. The cost quoted will then be the sum of the additional leasing fees needed to cover the work to be paid by the TOC over the remainder of the franchise to give a headline number for publicity purposes. The franchise blurb may say £y million for refurbishment but that is essentially giving the ROSCO a maximum price for the work.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

This is a very selective view of the state of BR. Red Star was haemorrhaging money; NSE was very poor on most fronts; InterCity was, in reality, heavily subsidised, as it didn't pick up its fair share of costs. If Freight made money, it would have been news to BRB. Despite changes to the culture, safety wasn't great. Staff were poorly paid, and acted accordingly.

You have some very rosy shades.

Did you ever work for BR - even on the front line ? , yes it was not paid well , but a significant % of the management team were proud of providing a pretty much 24/7 public service and relished the role. Proud even. Dedicated. Much so for most of the staff too.

Read the Monopolies and Mergers Report on the London and South East which categorically stresses how impressed they were by front line managers with their hefty responsibilites and lack of operational staffing.

And as for the trite comment on freight not making money - go back to the past , (if you can bear it) , and see how the Trainload Freight sector - particularly on coal - cross subsidised the rest of the freight community. The issues were more to do with Thatcher , Scargill and the globalisation of industrial trends - though clearly the inheritance of the 1950's and 1960's marred things. BR was pretty tough on sieving out poorly performing bits of freight, -

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I can tell that you have no Financial training.

If you believe that it is possible to accurately calculate the actual cost of one route on the UK network, you don't know much about costing.

You don't know much either - bid consultant I reckon ...

 

[coppercapped]

That's interesting. So you seem to be arguing that the costs of hiring rolling stock from the ROSCO's would be expected to fairly represent the actual cost of building and maintaining the rolling stock (plus a small profit margin). Set against that is the public perception that ROSCO's are making abnormally high profits which could've been invested back in the railway. Do you happen to know whether that's the case or not? (It's a genuine question - I don't know the answer).

Most of the public neither know or care. The 'public perception' is limited to one or two journalists with an axe to grind and some posters to this forum! What they ignore - either wilfully or out of ignorance - is that Governments do not have sufficient funds for large scale investment in all the activities they are concerned with. British Airways was privatised because it rocked up at the Treasury and wanted several billion to buy some more Boeing 747s. The money was not available which was one of the main drivers for the airline's privatisation - so it could tap into other sources of funding than the Treasury. In the case of the railways, and for the same reason, there would not have been so many new trains if the private sector had not been involved.

There are now several ROSCOs active in the UK, the market has grown since the early days with the triumvirate of Eversholt, Angel and Porterbrook. The more the merrier - it keeps the others honest!

Eversholt's figures for 2018 show that it had a gross income of some £375 million; this was made up of £518,000 finance lease income, £310 million operating lease income, £57 million maintenance income and £7 million other income. (I have rounded the numbers). Cost of sales was £186 million leaving a gross profit of £189 million. Various costs such as pensions payments, cost of finance (ROSCOs borrow the money to pay for the trains - they themselves are not banks) alone reached £152 million, write downs, administrative expenses and so on were deducted from the gross profit leaving a net profit of £31 million (down from £37 million for the preceding year).

In view of the value of the assets it manages, way over £2 billion (which translates to borrowings), that seems to me to be a proportional profit - it's 8% of turnover. If any one wants to see how the other companies are doing - they can do their own research!

 

[GrimShady]

This is a very selective view of the state of BR. Red Star was haemorrhaging money; NSE was very poor on most fronts; InterCity was, in reality, heavily subsidised, as it didn't pick up its fair share of costs. If Freight made money, it would have been news to BRB. Despite changes to the culture, safety wasn't great. Staff were poorly paid, and acted accordingly.

You have some very rosy shades.

Let's be clear. BR as an entity wasn't perfect, that doesn't mean by 2019 given the huge amount of money pour into the private system that it wouldn't have got better.

Red Star was still an excellent concept. Imagine if that had been adapted for the Amazon age.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a new BR enhanced with all the good points of the private system.

 

[yorksrob]

You have to distinguish between running maintenance costs - wear and tear, brake pad replacement, regular engine overhauls and so on and the cost of ‘mid-life’ updates which require significant engineering input, time out of service and so no income for the ROSCO for that period. I should have more carefully distinguished between the two.

Generally the TOC pays for day-to-day maintenance - whether by doing it itself, for example Southwestern Railway at Wimbledon depot or by contracting a company - often the trains’ manufacturer - to do it. South Western Trains does this as well - it contracts Siemens to maintain the Desiro fleet at Northam. As I understand the lease conditions the asset has to be handed back in a state which reflects it use - obviously it won’t be in exactly the same state as at the start of the lease as it will have had a few miles more on the clock! Any things added by the TOC during the lease and not paid for directly by the ROSCO - I understand that some CCTV fittings in some trains were done by the TOC - should be removed. Hence the removal of sticky labels giving the TOC’s identity before handback.

There comes a time, however, when more serious work is needed requiring significant engineering design input and approvals work. This could be corrosion repairs, re-engining of HST power cars or re-engineering old coaches - think sliding doors and controlled emission toilets in Mark III coaches. Such exercises cost significant amounts of money which is spent by the ROSCO in the hope it can be recovered later, the leasing fees then have to cover these expenses even if the coach is already over 30 years old and is outside its book life. So lease payments to amortise such work over the, say, ten years remaining physical life of the asset, might still be significant.

If the publicity states that, say, Northern is spending £x million in refurbishment one has to be careful what is entailed. If the work is effectively only cosmetic, seat covers, paint, etc., then it is possible that the TOC has paid directly. If it is anything more significant, new seat frames or tables, WiFi, power sockets, new PIS, then it is likely the ROSCO will do it, because of the necessary engineering design and approvals work. The cost quoted will then be the sum of the additional leasing fees needed to cover the work to be paid by the TOC over the remainder of the franchise to give a headline number for publicity purposes. The franchise blurb may say £y million for refurbishment but that is essentially giving the ROSCO a maximum price for the work.

That's as maybe, but for most of the past twenty years there has been a shortage of rolling stock (realistically, there still is for everything except short distance electric MU's). That has made it a sellers market. Where has the incentive/pressure been to control or drive down leasing charges in this scenario ?

If NR do take ownership of rolling stock, I'm inclined to think that that part of the company should be ring-fenced with open book accounting, to prevent them keeping charges higher than would otherwise be necessary, in order to prop up the rest of the company.

 

[yorksrob]

Most of the public neither know or care. The 'public perception' is limited to one or two journalists with an axe to grind and some posters to this forum! What they ignore - either wilfully or out of ignorance - is that Governments do not have sufficient funds for large scale investment in all the activities they are concerned with. British Airways was privatised because it rocked up at the Treasury and wanted several billion to buy some more Boeing 747s. The money was not available which was one of the main drivers for the airline's privatisation - so it could tap into other sources of funding than the Treasury. In the case of the railways, and for the same reason, there would not have been so many new trains if the private sector had not been involved.

There are now several ROSCOs active in the UK, the market has grown since the early days with the triumvirate of Eversholt, Angel and Porterbrook. The more the merrier - it keeps the others honest!

Eversholt's figures for 2018 show that it had a gross income of some £375 million; this was made up of £518,000 finance lease income, £310 million operating lease income, £57 million maintenance income and £7 million other income. (I have rounded the numbers). Cost of sales was £186 million leaving a gross profit of £189 million. Various costs such as pensions payments, cost of finance (ROSCOs borrow the money to pay for the trains - they themselves are not banks) alone reached £152 million, write downs, administrative expenses and so on were deducted from the gross profit leaving a net profit of £31 million (down from £37 million for the preceding year).

In view of the value of the assets it manages, way over £2 billion (which translates to borrowings), that seems to me to be a proportional profit - it's 8% of turnover. If any one wants to see how the other companies are doing - they can do their own research!

So effectively maintenance costs are paid on top of the leasing costs ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Let's be clear. BR as an entity wasn't perfect, that doesn't mean by 2019 given the huge amount of money pour into the private system that it wouldn't have got better.
Red Star was still an excellent concept. Imagine if that had been adapted for the Amazon age.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of a new BR enhanced with all the good points of the private system.

Most of the money poured into the privatised railway actually goes to (nationalised) Network Rail.
The passenger operation is pretty much breaking even taken overall, but there's still some weak areas, mostly rural (Conwy Valley line, what's the point?).
Red Star might have been a good concept, but sectorisation killed it because the passenger sectors didn't want to be messing about with parcels, and Red Star itself (Res) couldn't meet its costs as a free-standing service.
Neither could Motorail. Sleepers nearly died a death before the Cornish/Scottish subsidisers popped up, and mail did die but came back in minimal form.
I don't doubt people tried hard, and the business was improving, but obsolescence was overtaking it faster than the small amounts of modernisation going on.
Things like couplers are a symptom of the UK failing to keep up with international practice.
When the world uses Dellners you have to follow suit, or it's yet another bespoke national element which adds cost to the system.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

To posit a question - if Privatisation had simply involved selling each BR Sector as a complete business, would the private sector have achieved more than BR did?