Network Rail too big says Richard Branson

[jon0844]

Don't think there's a thread for this yet, but any thoughts about Richard Branson saying Network Rail is too big and should be broken up?

He also thinks train operators could then take up responsibility for the sections they run on, as they'd do a better job because of their reputation.

Of course it's very much an advert for Virgin Trains and I'm not quite sure how it would work where there are multiple operators on the same tracks. A good way to pass the buck I'd imagine!

More here: Network Rail 'too big', says Sir Richard Branson - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33281468

Network Rail is too big and should be broken up into regional units, Sir Richard Branson has told the BBC.
Many of the delays that passengers on Virgin Rail suffer are down to Network Rail, he said.
"Network Rail is far too big a company," he said. "I think that companies that kind of size should be broken up into small units."
Network Rail said decisions on its future would be taken by the government.

Investment delays

Sir Richard added that "ideally" the train operators should manage the track they use.
"We get enormously frustrated that people say will say that Virgin Rail has delays, but 90% of those delays are down to Network Rail," he told the BBC...

 

[najaB]

Already under discussion in this thread.

 

[corin paul]

He should stick to flying planes, and the music business. 5% of east coast dosen't give right to make the railways even more complicate.

 

[yorksrob]

I've not seen the quote yet, and unsurprisingly, I'm sceptical about the idea of a break up of the infrastructure. That said, I can see benefits to the traditional 'big four/regional' model. I don't see how the traditional Virgin Trains model would fit in with it though.

If you were going to break up NR, you'd be left with regions including local and IC services in a geographical area with vertical integration, otherwise what would be the benefit.

I suppose my query is, what would a purely IC operation gain from the split of the national network.

Unless Sir Richard is proposing building a modern day LMS out of Virgin Trains?

 

[Railsigns]

Perhaps the Virgin empire has become too big?

 

[Darandio]

5% of east coast dosen't give right to make the railways even more complicate.

10% isn't it? They also have a bigger stake in another franchise......

That still doesn't give anyone a right of course, but your post was very selective and very wrong.

 

[Chew Chew]

He is nothing more than a rent-a-quote these days coming out with silly statements like this or that Formula E will be bigger than Formula 1 in the next five years.

 

[6Gman]

Don't think there's a thread for this yet, but any thoughts about Richard Branson saying Network Rail is too big and should be broken up?

He also thinks train operators could then take up responsibility for the sections they run on, as they'd do a better job because of their reputation.

Of course it's very much an advert for Virgin Trains and I'm not quite sure how it would work where there are multiple operators on the same tracks. A good way to pass the buck I'd imagine!

More here: Network Rail 'too big', says Sir Richard Branson - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33281468

On the WCML (south) Virgin could manage the Fast Lines; LM could manage the Slow Lines.

That should work.

 

[MCR247]

On the WCML (south) Virgin could manage the Fast Lines; LM could manage the Slow Lines.

That should work.

Could we have a toll-booth like system where the driver of a pendolino has to pay up before he can use the crossover to the slow lines

 

[Senex]

I've not seen the quote yet, and unsurprisingly, I'm sceptical about the idea of a break up of the infrastructure. That said, I can see benefits to the traditional 'big four/regional' model. I don't see how the traditional Virgin Trains model would fit in with it though.

If you were going to break up NR, you'd be left with regions including local and IC services in a geographical area with vertical integration, otherwise what would be the benefit.

I suppose my query is, what would a purely IC operation gain from the split of the national network.

Unless Sir Richard is proposing building a modern day LMS out of Virgin Trains?

I thought the best infrastructure organisation we've seen was when the Sectors took over. On both Regional Railways and certain parts of InterCity that had long been neglected by regional managements too interested in their London-Scotland main lines to spend much money on anything much else that brought major benefits. The Midland line was a major beneficiary of changed attitudes.

The Regions were too unwieldy and too dependant on who was at the top, and far too narrowly focused on the Scotland lines. Look at Trans-Pennine. On the western side the LM just couldn't be bothered, and north and east of Manchester remained an unmodernised and unimproved desert. But from the Eastern Region boundary eastwards all sorts of things were done, under the leadership of two or three CCEs who realised how little had been done earlier in their region for the "secondary" main lines and were determined to spread the spending a bit more evenly.

 

[yorksrob]

I thought the best infrastructure organisation we've seen was when the Sectors took over. On both Regional Railways and certain parts of InterCity that had long been neglected by regional managements too interested in their London-Scotland main lines to spend much money on anything much else that brought major benefits. The Midland line was a major beneficiary of changed attitudes.

The Regions were too unwieldy and too dependant on who was at the top, and far too narrowly focused on the Scotland lines. Look at Trans-Pennine. On the western side the LM just couldn't be bothered, and north and east of Manchester remained an unmodernised and unimproved desert. But from the Eastern Region boundary eastwards all sorts of things were done, under the leadership of two or three CCEs who realised how little had been done earlier in their region for the "secondary" main lines and were determined to spread the spending a bit more evenly.

Indeed. This has always been my view. However, it's difficult to see how a Virgin trains, as it stands (i.e. purely Intercity) could support the break up of NR into what would inevitably be regional structures. Surely this would lead to vertical integration, which would lead to Virgin becoming custodians of local trains and commuter stoppers!

 

[Elecman]

On the WCML (south) Virgin could manage the Fast Lines; LM could manage the Slow Lines.

That should work.

And TfL the DC lines

 

[GB]

Can the various TOCs be trusted to ensure maintenance is actually done even if it is to the detriment of their own train services?

 

[455driver]

I suppose this means that Beardy wants to control the WCML/ECML for the benefit of his own (or Stagecoaches) trains!

 

[Chester1]

The only split of Network Rail that would be workable would be creating a Scottish Network Rail owned and fully funded by the Scottish Government. The existing WCML and ECML services from London to Scotland could be cut back to Carlise and Newcastle, with open access opperators running fast services in the 1tph that is currently free on each line (i.e. Alliance Rails GNER bid x2). Manchester/Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh could be transferred back to Cross Country, which would be the only franchise covering both networks (until HS2 is complete). Wales is too interlinked with England for such a system to work and regionalisation in England. would probably end up in chaos. With Cross Rail and HS2 (and maybe HS3) being seperate, fragmentation is already occuring).

 

[al.currie93]

Please, no more divisions and fragmentation! The railways are already fragmented enough, so leave it as it is at the very least but please no more!

10% isn't it? They also have a bigger stake in another franchise......

That still doesn't give anyone a right of course, but your post was very selective and very wrong.

It is 10% of East Coast, and 55% (or is it 51%?) of West Coast. Either way, even if you combined the two, he doesn't even own a whole company, and his main contribution to those is a brand and marketing unless someone can correct me! I am hence amazed (and thinkit's disgusting) that Mr Branson has or thinks he has so much control over the railways!

 

[HH]

Regardless of the fact that it's Beardy (who I trust no more than any of you), it has to be said that what he's saying here is essentially correct. When any entity gets too large then it tends to get out of control. It's the main reason why public ownership doesn't work; why banks are too big to fail; why Network is doomed to Fail.

These companies get too big, such that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Any operation has to split into reasonable size pieces in order to work.

This is why the "Alliance" principle was a good idea in theory. Why hasn't it worked? The usual reasons - those who can't trying to protect their fiefdoms from those that can.

 

[EM2]

These companies get too big, such that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Any operation has to split into reasonable size pieces in order to work.

But isn't NR already split into eight routes, each with its own Managing Director?

 

[steamybrian]

Having NR running trains and Franchises running train services causes too much arguments and time wasting.
I have an idea
Network Rail should combine with the train operating companies, have their own rolling stock and own all the infrastructure associated with running trains. It should be called "British Railways" :roll:

 

[HH]

But isn't NR already split into eight routes, each with its own Managing Director?

You might think that. However there are also a bunch of centralised functions (such as infrastructure projects, property, procurement, legal, etc., etc., etc.) that are outside the route hierarchy.

This is probably because most of the Route Directors are frankly not up to the job. When you get a good one, they tend not to stay in the job (c.f. Phil Verster, but look at what happened to the guy he 'replaced' in Scotland).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having NR running trains and Franchises running train services causes too much arguments and time wasting.
I have an idea
Network Rail should combine with the train operating companies, have their own rolling stock and own all the infrastructure associated with running trains. It should be called "British Railways" :roll:

And that was a great success, wasn't it?

 

[EM2]

You might think that. However there are also a bunch of centralised functions (such as infrastructure projects, property, procurement, legal, etc., etc., etc.) that are outside the route hierarchy.

This is probably because most of the Route Directors are frankly not up to the job. When you get a good one, they tend not to stay in the job (c.f. Phil Verster, but look at what happened to the guy he 'replaced' in Scotland).

But one of the major criticisms of the railway industry from all and sundry is that it's too fragmented. And you think fragmenting it *more* is a good idea?

 

[Railsigns]

And that was a great success, wasn't it?

Yes; British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in the world. Given the level of public funding the privatised railway gets today, it could have been one of the best as well.

 

[The Planner]

You might think that. However there are also a bunch of centralised functions (such as infrastructure projects, property, procurement, legal, etc., etc., etc.) that are outside the route hierarchy.

IP are split but not by route AFAIK.

 

[LWB]

But if Branston takes over we will finally get these steerable trains we so desperately deserve.

 

[jon0844]

Please, no more divisions and fragmentation! The railways are already fragmented enough, so leave it as it is at the very least but please no more!



It is 10% of East Coast, and 55% (or is it 51%?) of West Coast. Either way, even if you combined the two, he doesn't even own a whole company, and his main contribution to those is a brand and marketing unless someone can correct me! I am hence amazed (and thinkit's disgusting) that Mr Branson has or thinks he has so much control over the railways!

Control, no. Influence (through public support), yes.

From a PR point of view, getting in when Network Rail is being attacked is a good idea. If either of 'his' train operations get into trouble later on, Joe Public will remember him moaning about how most problems are down to NR and that Virgin are victims of the company being 'too big'. It will show he was clearly right all along.

It doesn't matter if people don't stop to consider the implications of breaking it up, as they'll assume SRB must know what he's talking about.

 

[thealexweb]

Are we seriously taking this subsidy junkie seriously? Let out the next intercity franchise on a zero subsidy franchise with realistic premiums and watch him squirm.

 

[HH]

IP are split but not by route AFAIK.

You're right. Split, but along different lines to Routes. I don't know which genius thought that one up.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But one of the major criticisms of the railway industry from all and sundry is that it's too fragmented. And you think fragmenting it *more* is a good idea?

Did you read what I wrote? It IS already far more fragmented than you guys realise. Just because it's all called Network Rail, doesn't mean everyone in NR is pulling in the same direction.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes; British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in the world.

And your proof of this assertion is? (A rhetorical question, because I know that you don't have any).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are we seriously taking this subsidy junkie seriously?

You should. He has an enviable track record of getting his way.

Anyway he wouldn't be running anything, even if there was vertical integration. It shows just how successful a self-publicist he is if you believe he has any direct input to running the railways.

 

[Starmill]

If the things that were within the control of VT were perfect, I might be willing to believe that they'd maintain track and signaling properly. But do they have every station shiny and clean and looking smart? Are all of their staff friendly, approachable and relentlessly customer-focussed? Is their First Class service ambitious and delivers consistently? Do they offer good value travel at short notice? Do they manage yield effectively to reduce overcrowding, and expand capacity in every way they can? Do their trains have a comfortable, modern interior that's OK for 4 hour journeys even in Standard, with the features everyone wants: free wifi and sockets?

Just like most train companies, these are all areas that need work. Some more than other TOCs out there. So don't try and blame Network Rail, and don't tell me you value your reputation until we see some effort to get some of these things improving.

 

[steamybrian]

Yes; British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in the world. Given the level of public funding the privatised railway gets today, it could have been one of the best as well.

Agreed..
I worked for BR between 1966-1994......
It was privatisation that is a failure. I joined Railtrack and they lasted less than 10 years..

 

[DarloRich]

I wonder if Virgin Trains would offer Virgin infraco better, longer & more frequent access to maintain the track?