• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
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.

Arent the subsidies to network rail because the track access charges are kept artificially cheap and do not reflect the cost of maintaining the track let alone renewals and enhancements. For running London Paddington Network Rail recieve the equivilant of 9p per passenger that in most cases not even cover the staffing costs of the passengers interactions with NR staff at a station.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
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?
That's more or less what happened with freight - except that North and South Railways bought up all the various bits of the parcels and freight business - rebranding the whole lot as EWS - except for Freightliner and a couple of niche operators. Of course, the separation of trains and track meant that Freightliner and DRS were able to grow at the expense of EWS and new competitors were able to enter the market.

It's conceivable that something similar might have happened had InterCity, Regional Railways, and Network SouthEast been sold as going concerns - either as single companies, or broken down into operating units as was done with Railfreight. But you would probably have to wave goodbye to interavailable tickets, and timetabling would become even more complicated.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Arent the subsidies to network rail because the track access charges are kept artificially cheap and do not reflect the cost of maintaining the track let alone renewals and enhancements. For running London Paddington Network Rail recieve the equivilant of 9p per passenger that in most cases not even cover the staffing costs of the passengers interactions with NR staff at a station.
Maybe the question you should be asking is, "Why are there so many NR staff at Paddington Station?"
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
There's nothing wrong with the idea of a new BR enhanced with all the good points of the private system.

There's one thing wrong with it: No-one can work out a way of re-creating British Rail with its huge strength-in-depth of experienced railway professionals!
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
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 am not sure that Motorail couldn't make a comeback. In some format. There's some very expensive Scottish highlands holidays for which people would much much rather use their own luxury cars and to take motorbikes up. and would pay a large premium, than 1000 miles plus of boring motorway, plus the depreciation and wear and tear. Plus saving 16 hours of driving. Say to somewhere like Perth to allow West and North...
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
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.
The quantity of rolling stock available to the TOCs is controlled by the DfT through the franchise contracts. The DfT has not permitted TOCs to operate more stock than is strictly necessary - which is especially true of the heavily loss-making operations such as Northern. You know this very well.

The DfT essentially accused the ROSCOs of overcharging, referred the matter to the ORR which quickly passed the question on to the Competitions Commission (now the Competition and Markets Authority) which reported in April 2009. The report may be found here - I recommend reading it carefully because it answers your questions.

Since then, as you well know, little changed in the rolling stock supply market until the DfT started to weigh train quality (i.e., new) more highly in its bid evaluations - hence the current mass extinction of older stock.

Added in edit: There was no suggestion in the statement I read that that Network Rail should take ownership of the rolling stock. The suggestion was that NR would take over the franchising activities from the DfT.
I think this is very unlikely to happen because NR would then be in the awkward position of being both the customer of the TOCs (who pay it so they can use its tracks) as well as being the TOCs' regulatory body.
The original Railways Act got this right - the Office for Passenger Rail Franchising was the independent body responsible for regulating the TOCs. This clear separation of responsibilities was destroyed by John Prescott who subsumed its activities into the short lived Strategic Rail Authority.
In any event, if NR takes ownership of the rolling stock that will add another £8 -10 billion to the National Debt. It won't happen.
So effectively maintenance costs are paid on top of the leasing costs ?
I don't know what Eversholt classifies as 'maintenance costs' - although I suspect it's heavier overhauls connected with mid-life updates and similar. As I wrote above, running maintenance is carried out by the TOCs either on their own account or by sub-contract.
If you're worried about this line item then ask Eversholt for clarification. Contact details here.
 
Last edited:

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
There's one thing wrong with it: No-one can work out a way of re-creating British Rail with its huge strength-in-depth of experienced railway professionals!

More broadly, it is impossible to recreate in 2019 or later an organisation which disappeared 25 years ago. At least half the people who worked for BR then will have retired. Much of the technology is different. Passenger numbers and the number of train services are much greater. The cry "Bring back BR" is nostalgic escapism.

What I hope the Williams review is doing is to think about what the railways need to provide, and then consider how that can best be done. We should find out fairly soon.
 

ag51ruk

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2014
Messages
629
Yes, but I still think you’ll find it’s TOC employees & contractors that deal with most train and customer related issues there.

I don't visit Paddington often, but if it is the same as most other NR managed stations then NR staff/contractors will be responsible for maintaining the station infrastructure, station cleaning, toilets, security and disabled passenger assistance. Most of those will be passenger facing roles.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I am not sure that Motorail couldn't make a comeback. In some format. There's some very expensive Scottish highlands holidays for which people would much much rather use their own luxury cars and to take motorbikes up. and would pay a large premium, than 1000 miles plus of boring motorway, plus the depreciation and wear and tear. Plus saving 16 hours of driving. Say to somewhere like Perth to allow West and North...

This comes up every so often. Motorail has breathed it’s last, ceased to be, expired. It is an ex service.

You would be talking well into 4 figures for a car and occupants - look at the cost of a double room on the sleeper, see how much space it takes up on a train, and “do the math”. It would be cheaper to hire a chauffeur one way.

The people with serious money who take highland holidays fly, or take the day train (or in some cases sleeper), and are then driven around or provided with a car by the estate they visit.

And I’m not sure where you get a 16 hour drive from. London to Perth is about 8 (unlesss you mean return trip)
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Yes, but I still think you’ll find it’s TOC employees & contractors that deal with most train and customer related issues there.
Nope apart fron ticket office staff and some gateline staff all the customer facing roles at paddington are NR staff.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The quantity of rolling stock available to the TOCs is controlled by the DfT through the franchise contracts. The DfT has not permitted TOCs to operate more stock than is strictly necessary - which is especially true of the heavily loss-making operations such as Northern. You know this very well.

The DfT essentially accused the ROSCOs of overcharging, referred the matter to the ORR which quickly passed the question on to the Competitions Commission (now the Competition and Markets Authority) which reported in April 2009. The report may be found here - I recommend reading it carefully because it answers your questions.

Since then, as you well know, little changed in the rolling stock supply market until the DfT started to weigh train quality (i.e., new) more highly in its bid evaluations - hence the current mass extinction of older stock.

I do well know that the rolling stock available to TOC's is restricted by Government, which begs the question, if Government is controlling the rolling stock available anyway, what is the point of trying to recreate a competitive market in rolling stock leasing in the first place, since it makes it impossible for TOC's to take advantage of any competition benefits that may be forthcoming.

In terms of the CMA's report, its relevance ti this thread will depend on whether the terms of reference of the original study included comparison with a system in which rolling stock is bought and owned outright, rather than leased, or whether it was restricted to considering whether the leasing system was operating as intended. You'll have to forgive me, as I haven't had time to read the whole document, nevertheless, the summary seems to suggest that the study concentrated on whether the leasing system was operating as should (this isn't surprising as the CMA is primarily concerned with how well markets operate, not with questions of whether markets are appropriate in the first place).

It's worth noting also that in it's summary, the CMA report notes a lot of the shortcomings of the leasing system, e.g. weak incentives to compete on lease rentals, barriers to the market, difficulties transferring stock around etc.

Added in edit: There was no suggestion in the statement I read that that Network Rail should take ownership of the rolling stock. The suggestion was that NR would take over the franchising activities from the DfT.
I think this is very unlikely to happen because NR would then be in the awkward position of being both the customer of the TOCs (who pay it so they can use its tracks) as well as being the TOCs' regulatory body.
The original Railways Act got this right - the Office for Passenger Rail Franchising was the independent body responsible for regulating the TOCs. This clear separation of responsibilities was destroyed by John Prescott who subsumed its activities into the short lived Strategic Rail Authority.
In any event, if NR takes ownership of the rolling stock that will add another £8 -10 billion to the National Debt. It won't happen.

I don't know what Eversholt classifies as 'maintenance costs' - although I suspect it's heavier overhauls connected with mid-life updates and similar. As I wrote above, running maintenance is carried out by the TOCs either on their own account or by sub-contract.
If you're worried about this line item then ask Eversholt for clarification. Contact details here.

I'm not convinced of your assertion that the original Railways Act did get franchising "right". It seems that OPRAF didn't have the necessary ability to include strategic transport objectives in franchising, otherwise the SRA wouldn't have been invented. To not have that strategic input would suggest a sort of steady state railway which was already optimised for the country's needs, rather than one which would inevitably need some direction (of the sort the Board used to provide under BR). Perhaps the rolling stock leasing system really only exists as part of the money-go-round to keep a few billion of the Government's books.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
I don't visit Paddington often, but if it is the same as most other NR managed stations then NR staff/contractors will be responsible for maintaining the station infrastructure, station cleaning, toilets, security and disabled passenger assistance. Most of those will be passenger facing roles.
Many of them are third party staff, although paid by NR. And the reasons there are so many of them is because of all the retail. It's a good game for NR - take all the income and pass most of the cost to the TOCs.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Nope apart fron ticket office staff and some gateline staff all the customer facing roles at paddington are NR staff.
The TOCs also dispatch the trains. Exactly what customer-facing roles do NR staff cover? The only one I know is disabled assistance.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
The TOCs also dispatch the trains. Exactly what customer-facing roles do NR staff cover? The only one I know is disabled assistance.

Secruity, cleaning, there are some gateline roles (although this seems split with the tocs) passenger assistance
 

SilentGrade

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
135
Many of them are third party staff, although paid by NR. And the reasons there are so many of them is because of all the retail. It's a good game for NR - take all the income and pass most of the cost to the TOCs.

I hope you’re not suggesting retail staff on stations are paid by NR because if so it betrays your ignorance at how the managed stations are actually run
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
I am not sure that Motorail couldn't make a comeback. In some format. There's some very expensive Scottish highlands holidays for which people would much much rather use their own luxury cars and to take motorbikes up. and would pay a large premium, than 1000 miles plus of boring motorway, plus the depreciation and wear and tear. Plus saving 16 hours of driving. Say to somewhere like Perth to allow West and North...
Motorrail can't possibly achieve a high enough load density in a puny British loading gauge and with our very short train lengths.

The Autotrain in the US still loses money (but is one of the least lossy long distance trains Amtrak has) and that has the advantage of a 1200m long formation in which it can stack cars three high.

You would need something like the Chunnel operation on dedicated infrastructure to get anywhere near breaking even, and the capital requirements would be huge.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
I hope you’re not suggesting retail staff on stations are paid by NR because if so it betrays your ignorance at how the managed stations are actually run
Where the hell did you get that idea from? NR get all the rents from the retail on Major Stations like Paddington; the point is that they provide a lot more cleaning, security, etc. due to the retail premises. I've dealt with managed stations for over 20 years; I'm pretty sure I have a better idea of how they are run than you.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Where the hell did you get that idea from? NR get all the rents from the retail on Major Stations like Paddington; the point is that they provide a lot more cleaning, security, etc. due to the retail premises. I've dealt with managed stations for over 20 years; I'm pretty sure I have a better idea of how they are run than you.
The security and cleaning for a london terminal would be required weather there are retail areas or not based on footfall alone.most London terminals are the size of medium to large shopping centres. Yet the combined income from the TOCs at this location is often from between 1% to 5% of what that level of commercial space would be in London.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Secruity, cleaning, there are some gateline roles (although this seems split with the tocs) passenger assistance
Security is not customer facing; nor is cleaning - neither regularly have contact with customers (drivers don't count as customer facing either, although maybe that is changing). NR generally don't do gatelines. They certainly don't do them at Paddington.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Security is not customer facing; nor is cleaning - neither regularly have contact with customers (drivers don't count as customer facing either, although maybe that is changing). NR generally don't do gatelines. They certainly don't do them at Paddington.
Security is customer facing and so is cleaning. How do the security guards deal with incidents without facing customers?
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
The security and cleaning for a london terminal would be required weather there are retail areas or not based on footfall alone.most London terminals are the size of medium to large shopping centres. Yet the combined income from the TOCs at this location is often from between 1% to 5% of what that level of commercial space would be in London.
It's not commercial space, it's railway space. Well the bits that the TOCs mostly use, anyway. NR has vastly increased the retail space at most stations; on a number of them there is more footfall from non-Railway users than from passengers. I don't see why the TOCs should pay for all the cleaning and all the security, given that's the case.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Security is customer facing and so is cleaning. How do the security guards deal with incidents without facing customers?
What incidents do you think they deal with? And we are going to have to disagree about cleaning. It's not viewed as customer facing by the industry.

Oh and there's vastly more of both than there would be without the retail.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
It's not commercial space, it's railway space. Well the bits that the TOCs mostly use, anyway. NR has vastly increased the retail space at most stations; on a number of them there is more footfall from non-Railway users than from passengers. I don't see why the TOCs should pay for all the cleaning and all the security, given that's the case.
They are paying to access, use and for maintainenance the space. Which for london is quite a huge premium
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top