Should GBR split the rail network by region or by traffic type?

[Fazaar1889]

In British rail, there was a point where it was split into regions similar to today's model. Later on, they restructured into regional, intercity and Network southeast. It is clear they had reasons to believe the latter was better. With GBR coming into the picture, they plan to split the network into regions. Do you think this is a good idea? Or is the 3 type model superior?

 

[HSTEd]

Fundamentally the number of "types" of traffic on the railway have been falling over time.

We now have (comparatively) high performance passenger (E)MUs, containers and aggregates.
Whilst (passenger) different types of train might have different interiors that is increasingly the only real difference between them, performance is converging at the fundamental limit of steel wheel infrastructure.

There is not much else.

Given that aggregates don't really move very long distances, I think "regions" are a good idea. Although the regions should be based on railway geography rather than simple geography.
ie. Groups of lines that are a largely self contained unit with only limited traffic across boundaries.

 

[philosopher]

Fundamentally the number of "types" of traffic on the railway have been falling over time.

We now have (comparatively) high performance passenger EMUs, containers and aggregates.
Whilst different types of train might have different interiors that is increasingly the only real difference between them, performance is converging at the fundamental limit of steel wheel infrastructure.

There is not much else.

Given that aggregates don't really move very long distances, I think "regions" are a good idea. Although the regions should be based on railway geography rather than simple geography.
ie. Groups of lines that are a largely self contained unit with only limited traffic across boundaries.

Given the current structure of the railways, I think it would be easier to split the network into regions. Most of the current operators should fit well into a particular region, though placing CrossCountry and Transpennine Express into a geographical region would be tricky.

I think the distinction between InterCity and regional rail has become more blurred now than compared to 30 years ago. InterCity trains are often used for commuting journeys and vice versa.

Though personally I would like if the InterCity brand came back.

 

[zwk500]

Fundamentally the question is about how you allocate costs and revenue. As resources have become increasingly dedicated to traffic types, so it has made sense to organise along those lines. However Track Maintenance is still largely planned by Regions. Network Rail organises itself into 5 Routes Regions (Roughly analogous to the old 'Big 4' + Scotland), which then divide into 13 regions Routes, which again are broadly grouped around 1 or 2 mainlines that serve a distinct area. E.g. Wessex is based around the main line out of Waterloo, Anglia is based around the lines out of Liverpool Street. However the franchises broadly organised along 'sector' lines.

 

[TSG]

Fundamentally the question is about how you allocate costs and revenue. As resources have become increasingly dedicated to traffic types, so it has made sense to organise along those lines. However Track Maintenance is still largely planned by Regions. Network Rail organises itself into 5 Routes (Roughly analogous to the old 'Big 4' + Scotland), which then divide into 13 regions, which again are broadly grouped around 1 or 2 mainlines that serve a distinct area. E.g. Wessex is based around the main line out of Waterloo, Anglia is based around the lines out of Liverpool Street. However the franchises broadly organised along 'sector' lines.

I think you've got your regions and routes mixed up. Southern Region comprises the Wessex, Sussex and Kent Routes for example

 

[zwk500]

I think you've got your regions and routes mixed up. Southern Region comprises the Wessex, Sussex and Kent Routes for example

Fair point, will edit my post!

 

[Matt P]

Personally I'd favour traffic type, probably for similar reasons to sectorisation in the 1980s. It provides a market focus. Even if nationalised rail will still need to operate in a highly competitive environment so will need to still perform in a business like manner. Freight and open access will remain fully private in any case (freight absolutely should stay there as well).

The rail operators of several EU countries segregate their operating divisions by traffic type (e.g ICE, IC, Regional Express, Regional Bahn). Probably for similar reasons to those outlined above. In fact the structure of DB, SNCF and a handful of others could arguably be one of BR's greatest legacies.

I'd like to see most longer distance/higher speed services grouped into an Intercity type company, as a wholly owned subsidiary of GBR. The set up of UK equivalent of the RE/RB type services is perhaps more complex, particularly as central government isn't all that good at the concept of subsidiarity, but there's no reason why some form of overall branding akin to Regional Railways or NSE couldn't return, perhaps with local transport authorities having a major role in specifying or even commissioning services, again as per many EU countries.

The operating division and the infrastructure division don't necessarily need to be grouped together, although it would be possible to go full OfQ at some point. Having NR and most of the passenger operators under the same overall ownership with (hopefully) a common strategic direction should be the main goal.

 

[irish_rail]

Personally I'd favour traffic type, probably for similar reasons to sectorisation in the 1980s. It provides a market focus. Even if nationalised rail will still need to operate in a highly competitive environment so will need to still perform in a business like manner. Freight and open access will remain fully private in any case (freight absolutely should stay there as well).

The rail operators of several EU countries segregate their operating divisions by traffic type (e.g ICE, IC, Regional Express, Regional Bahn). Probably for similar reasons to those outlined above. In fact the structure of DB, SNCF and a handful of others could arguably be one of BR's greatest legacies.

I'd like to see most longer distance/higher speed services grouped into an Intercity type company, as a wholly owned subsidiary of GBR. The set up of UK equivalent of the RE/RB type services is perhaps more complex, particularly as central government isn't all that good at the concept of subsidiarity, but there's no reason why some form of overall branding akin to Regional Railways or NSE couldn't return, perhaps with local transport authorities having a major role in specifying or even commissioning services, again as per many EU countries.

The operating division and the infrastructure division don't necessarily need to be grouped together, although it would be possible to go full OfQ at some point. Having NR and most of the passenger operators under the same overall ownership with (hopefully) a common strategic direction should be the main goal.

I agree with this. Though vital that staff are employed by GBR and not an individual sector and so can be used constructively as opposed to the current situation of zero cross TOC cooperation on staffing.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm extremely skeptical that any structure that has train operations organised separately from infrastructure operations will ever meaningfully improve on the status quo.

A lot of problems are caused by this split, for example technology improvements that accrue cost to one side but with savings that accrue to the other. This leads to arguments over who pays for it, whereas at the end of the day what matters is reducing the cost to the farepayer or taxpayer.

 

[zwk500]

I'm extremely skeptical that any structure that has train operations organised separately from infrastructure operations will ever meaningfully improve on the status quo.

A lot of problems are caused by this split, for example technology improvements that accrue cost to one side but with savings that accrue to the other. This leads to arguments over who pays for it, whereas at the end of the day what matters is reducing the cost to the farepayer or taxpayer.

A lot of these arguments are down to modern business management and accounting practices though, and being joined into one bigger company wouldn't necessarily mean that, e.g., a Manager's target to keep within his or her budget gets dropped.

 

[Snow1964]

It's quite a difficult decision, the problem with regions is certain flows won't fit well, think Cardiff-Nottingham, or Cardiff-Portsmouth or some Transpennine flows etc

Having regions with boundaries that look like spokes on a London based wheel, might suit London based routes, but not much else.

I am wary regions are likely to hold back any non London journeys eg Bristol-Liverpool or Sheffield-Swansea (to pick pairs from large cities at random), even taking the 20 biggest cities and linking them (19 lines from each) shows how bad regional boundaries would be, and could stifle any attempt at improving routes between the two.

I would prefer to see passenger services split into 3 :

1) Inter-city (where advances and reservation are norm)
2) Regional (anything else over say 1.5 to 2 hours)
3) Local and commuter (trains under say 100 minutes)

That way each can be focused on market it is serving, and order trains that are best suited. And focus on what best suits their market.

I cannot really see any reason for a different approach in different parts of the country (ok some might be diesel, others battery or electric), but do local services in say Devon need a different management style to local services in Nottinghamshire, I don't think they do. So why try and have two separate factions based in different parts of the country doing their own thing.

 

[I'm here now]

I think Direct rail services should become the GBR of freight and should do some sort of Red Star service.

 

[Rail Quest]

Perhaps the choice of either traffic type or regions (or perhaps an other alternative) should be selected based on where the railways are are their most unequal.

For example, if people feel that specific regions (such as Cornwall) are getting worse treatment than others (such as London/the South East), then using regions may help boost struggling regions perhaps. However, if users of more InterCity style services were experiencing far worse performance than commuters, then perhaps a traffic-based system could aim to make these types consistent.

I honestly think there's decent arguments for both, so I'll leave this one mostly neutral

 

[30907]

Difficult one, because there will always be borderlinecases as Snow1964 points out, though I believe sectorisation was and is a sensible approach. And yet...

The classic InterCity model is London-based, with long distances (by UK standards, that is) and few stops. But it doesn't fit the way the UK has developed. 50 years ago it was OK to pass Reading and Swindon non-stop out of Paddington, Milton Keynes didn't even have a station... London still dominates, but there's more short-distance traffic on those routes.
That raises the question - is the modern equivalent of the HST right for all these routes. The negative answer hasn't gone down well in Wellingborough AIUI....
(OT, but OeBB in Austria have decided one size doesn't fit all, and they need a different unit for Wien-Salzburg semifasts.)

Then again - what about NE-SW? HSTs fitted well with trains like the Cornishman with the minimum of stops (Sheffield-Derby-Birmingham-Bristol-Exeter), but XC today is more a (decent quality) semi-fast, and more like TPE than LNER in that respect. Do we need an IC-London sector and an IC-Regions?

One step down, and where does Liverpool-Norwich fit in, or Manchester-Cardiff - TfW give a rather different answer to EMR on this!

Then there's Regional - or (Other) Provincial Services! - where South-West England and West Yorkshire have very different needs. And the likes of Whitby or Lincolnshire are different again. I think I would go for specific business units, with a regional umbrella body but some sort of link to the relevant IC operator.

 

[Bevan Price]

Whatever the structural arrangement, I think we need more flexibility and an end to fragmentation.
For just one example, currently there are Liverpool to Norwich and Birmingham to Cambridge / Stansted Airport services. I think there should be a reverse to the situation where there could also be Liverpool to Stansted and Birmingham to Norwich services. Also, Liverpool drivers as well as Nottingham drivers participated instead of having long, wastedful empty stock movements between Nottingham & Liverpool.

Likewise, Liverpool should return to having some long distance services to, for example, Bournemouth, Bristol or Plymouth.
(And similarly for elsewhere in UK)

I would also hope that GBR gets a decent, rail-knowledgeable management, with minimal interference by DfT. (wishful thinking, I fear.)

 

[blueberry11]

Really love the fact that Diss is one of the only UK railway stations to be served exclusively by intercity trains, even though Diss is a small town with 10,000 people. I think that commuters and visitors to Norwich commonly use the short intercity stretch (~18 minutes).

Anyway, I think that Transport for Wales and ScotRail will continue to operate as they are, serving the respective parts of the UK, though not sure about the nationalised Northern, TransPennine Express, LNER, etc.

 

[JonathanH]

For just one example, currently there are Liverpool to Norwich and Birmingham to Cambridge / Stansted Airport services. I think there should be a reverse to the situation where there could also be Liverpool to Stansted and Birmingham to Norwich services.

It is all very well saying that destinations should switch to allow different through journeys, but that means departures somewhere along the route can't then be at the same time each hour. Given the services then have to fit in with other services on the same corridors it all gets a bit messy.

Likewise, Liverpool should return to having some long distance services to, for example, Bournemouth, Bristol or Plymouth.
(And similarly for elsewhere in UK)

Exactly the same applies with trying to give Liverpool through services to a disparate list of places beyond Birmingham. Frequencies on the railway nowadays mean it isn't as easy as in the distant past to run a myriad of different through services.

I would also hope that GBR gets a decent, rail-knowledgeable management, with minimal interference by DfT. (wishful thinking, I fear.)

I'd imagine rail knowledgeable management would plan a network which is straightforward to deliver.

 

[ComUtoR]

I would prefer to see passenger services split into 3 :

1) Inter-city (where advances and reservation are norm)
2) Regional (anything else over say 1.5 to 2 hours)
3) Local and commuter (trains under say 100 minutes)

Can I use my ticket on any of the services or can I board any train as long as it stops at my station ?

 

[Bevan Price]

It is all very well saying that destinations should switch to allow different through journeys, but that means departures somewhere along the route can't then be at the same time each hour. Given the services then have to fit in with other services on the same corridors it all gets a bit messy.

Regular interval is ideal for local services - but does it really matter for long distance services.Shifting some times a few minutes either way might also permit some faster freight services - those which waste hours (or more) being shunted into loops to be overtaken by passenger services.

 

[WAB]

I think a reversion to Organising for Quality is the best way to go about it, even though it will take a while to implement. The division between the engineering side and the commercial side is the most important bit to break down. It's clear that the old regions were not structured properly in this regard. Given that NwR is already set up in regions, effectively establishing them as the existing bodies which TOCs are being merged into would not be a good thing.

I think the subsectors could largely stay as they are; however, I'd change the following:

1. Merge the Northern routes across the Pennines into TPE North
2. Merge TPE South with the EMR Liv-Norwich and the XC regional routes
3. Split the remaining northern routes into Yorkshire, NorthWestern and NorthEastern
4. TPE Scottish route to revert to Avanti

On the other hand, the greatest advantage of the regional structure is fewer inefficiencies with traincrew and stock working. A set of mechanisms within OfQ2 to allow subsectors to 'loan' each other traincrew and stock to avoid unnecessary costs would be very useful, particularly for XC, Avanti in Holyhead, and LNER north of Edinburgh.

 

[HSTEd]

A lot of these arguments are down to modern business management and accounting practices though, and being joined into one bigger company wouldn't necessarily mean that, e.g., a Manager's target to keep within his or her budget gets dropped.

When they are inside the same corporate structure there is a far clearer route to simply compel the subunit management to obey though.

The further up the control stack the division continues the harder it will be force cooperation from above. Separation by traffic type is likely to force that split all the way to the ministerial level!

Given technological changes it is reaching the point where there will be only three train types on the system. <110mph multiple unit, >110mph multiple unit, and freight trains. Even separating freight it is likely to be containers and aggregates only, with minor traffic being shipped in container adaptors like tanktainers.

If we have a system based on the reality of the railway infrastructure we can unlock many savings that have so far proven elusive.
In a world where trains like the TGV-M are supposedly able to replace their entire interior in a weekend, I'm not convinced separation of passenger services by "type" is really sensible.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Even the type of traffic was blurry.

The example being was that the GatEx was Intercity yet The Brighton trains were Network South East

 

[Magdalia]

Whatever the structural arrangement, I think we need more flexibility and an end to fragmentation.
For just one example, currently there are Liverpool to Norwich and Birmingham to Cambridge / Stansted Airport services. I think there should be a reverse to the situation where there could also be Liverpool to Stansted and Birmingham to Norwich services. Also, Liverpool drivers as well as Nottingham drivers participated instead of having long, wastedful empty stock movements between Nottingham & Liverpool.

I agree. A rearrangement like this is almost impossible under the current franchise model. The railway needs to be able to adapt to changes in the economy in general and travel patterns in particular, not be stuck with fragmentation mostly decided 30 years ago.

Merge TPE South with the EMR Liv-Norwich and the XC regional routes

From a Fenland perspective, I'd rather see both routes run by an Anglian region, evolved from the current Greater Anglia franchise, borrowing traincrew when going beyond Peterborough. This could take over the Kings Cross-Fenland services too. That way we might get more efficient use of scarce capacity at Cambridge and Ely.

 

[JonathanH]

Regular interval is ideal for local services - but does it really matter for long distance services.

Those long distance services have to take their place in between local ones though so their place is effectively fixed. Indeed, they often form a pattern with the local services to provide regular departures over a route.

From a Fenland perspective, I'd rather see both routes run by an Anglian region, evolved from the current Greater Anglia franchise, borrowing traincrew when going beyond Peterborough. This could take over the Kings Cross-Fenland services too. That way we might get more efficient use of scarce capacity at Cambridge and Ely.

Cut them off at Peterborough and that would be fine. However, as longer distance services, somewhere along their route, they aren't being operated in conjunction with the locally managed services. Once services are constrained by having to fit through Sheffield, Leicester and Manchester, optimisation of Ely has to be considered against optimisation at other pinch points.

The folly of Cambridge traincrew not allowing Norwich staff to work south of Cambridge towards Stansted Airport has been discussed previously, with the traincrew not agreeing to 'losing' certain work. Are those sorts of objections going to be dropped easily?

There is definitely a place for the whole timetable to be planned strategically without vested interests, but if long distance trains are going to continue to go through places with imperfect signalling and track layouts, there will be compromises.

 

[WAB]

The folly of Cambridge traincrew not allowing Norwich staff to work south of Cambridge towards Stansted Airport has been discussed previously, with the traincrew not agreeing to 'losing' certain work. Are those sorts of objections going to be dropped easily?

All sorts of objections will be raised over any sort of restructuring involving the traincrew grades. It may require some hardnosed actions to avoid being stuck with what we have now forever; i.e., reallocating work between depots or reducing work altogether. You would of course guarantee no compulsory redundancies or forced relocations, but beyond that the unions will have to suck it up. Given that any structural changes will have them up in arms, I don't see that it'd make much difference to add one more thing to their list of grievances.

 

[nw1]

I'd say regions mostly make sense operationally (as they allow integrated services in a particular part of the country), except there is a good case for a return of NSE, particularly now cross-London routes such as Thameslink exist.

So, the divisions would be: NSE, Western, London Midland, Eastern, Scottish and Welsh (the last due to devolution, operating services entirely or mostly within Wales only). The Southern would of course be a subset of NSE.

NSE would be mostly like the "old" NSE, except I would transfer Waterloo-Exeter into the "Western Region", as it's the only diesel route into Waterloo and seems, to me, to belong to the same group of routes as the "regional" routes in the southwest. Compatible stock, too (159s can work in multiple with 158s and presumably 150s, etc). Perhaps, in fact, the entire group of Paddington mainline services (including ex-NSE routes such as Oxford and Worcester) would be part of the Western rather than NSE, as Paddington doesn't really have an extensive commuter network. The Elizabeth Line could become part of NSE.

Cross-Country would most naturally belong to the "London Midland" region as it's centred on Birmingham.

InterCity would also return as a branding, with its own livery, but individual IC services would be operated by the respective Region.

 

[Matt P]

I'd say regions mostly make sense operationally (as they allow integrated services in a particular part of the country), except there is a good case for a return of NSE, particularly now cross-London routes such as Thameslink exist.

So, the divisions would be: NSE, Western, London Midland, Eastern, Scottish and Welsh (the last due to devolution, operating services entirely or mostly within Wales only). The Southern would of course be a subset of NSE.

NSE would be mostly like the "old" NSE, except I would transfer Waterloo-Exeter into the "Western Region", as it's the only diesel route into Waterloo and seems, to me, to belong to the same group of routes as the "regional" routes in the southwest. Compatible stock, too (159s can work in multiple with 158s and presumably 150s, etc). Perhaps, in fact, the entire group of Paddington mainline services (including ex-NSE routes such as Oxford and Worcester) would be part of the Western rather than NSE, as Paddington doesn't really have an extensive commuter network. The Elizabeth Line could become part of NSE.

Cross-Country would most naturally belong to the "London Midland" region as it's centred on Birmingham.

InterCity would also return as a branding, with its own livery, but individual IC services would be operated by the respective Region.

That sounds like a structure that would give rise to significant tensions between the 'brand' e.g Intercity or NSE , which would need some kind of overall management,especially to coordinate its regional sub-sectors, and the regions. The priorities of the brand (or call it sector) managers may not be the same as the region. It is one of the regions why BR followed up sectorisation with Organising for Quality, which gave the individual sectors with almost full control over their own businesses.

The OfQ structure, whilst a good one, couldn't quite be replicated today though. Handing many of the former BR Regional Railways our NSE sectors over to the infrastructure division of a successor sector operator may work where they are the sole or predominant operator. Routes like the WCML and ECML would be more complex with a multitude of long distance (including open access), freight and regional operators. However perhaps the solution there is a new version of the pre-nationalisation joint railway.

 

[WAB]

I'd say regions mostly make sense operationally (as they allow integrated services in a particular part of the country), except there is a good case for a return of NSE, particularly now cross-London routes such as Thameslink exist.

I don't really see how you'd avoid the lack of commercial and customer focus that plagued the regional set up pre-Sectorisation. As an operator, I'd love for our function to regain dominance in the industry but that's not what is best for the customer or the general health of the industry.

The OfQ structure, whilst a good one, couldn't quite be replicated today though. Handing many of the former BR Regional Railways our NSE sectors over to the infrastructure division of a successor sector operator may work where they are the sole or predominant operator. Routes like the WCML and ECML would be more complex with a multitude of long distance (including open access), freight and regional operators. However perhaps the solution there is a new version of the pre-nationalisation joint railway.

Even under OfQ there was plenty of inter-sector traffic. Just needs a bit of added contract to deal with OAOs and FOCs, as well as a freight sector to deal with maintenance on freight-only lines (even if that only amounts to subcontracting it out to another local operator).

How were signalling, route control and MOMs organised post-OfQ?

 

[Clarence Yard]

If maximum savings need to be achieved, then the Regional set up is the most efficient way to achieve them because you are not having to duplicate at the production level.

The problem with the commercial side in BR Regional days was that BR had to be a production led organisation but when they had to be more “commercial”, decades of cost control and playing a relatively minor commercial game (on the passenger side, at least) meant that the then structure and its inhabitants couldn’t really cope. Bob Reid 1 predicted this and moved the railway towards Sectorisation.

Where Sectorisation failed was that it had a beggar thy neighbour approach and it became very difficult to cross sector boundaries when it came to sharing resources. Good multi sector parts of the railway were emasculated as the rush to control your own assets and do your own thing regardless came into play.

The lesson here is that while you can split the commercial functions how you want, the production and delivery side should stay regional so GBR is set up to counter any balkanisation or any sub sector or sector fiefdoms.

Significant cross regional services are easy. You make them joint regional operations and if your costing set up is attributed cost only (coded like BR did in their initial AXIS II financial set up), rather than actual transferred cost, it will be relatively easy to manage.

 

[nw1]

I don't really see how you'd avoid the lack of commercial and customer focus that plagued the regional set up pre-Sectorisation.

Isn't it best for the passenger though, perhaps, if all services in a particular area of the country are operated by the same sub-division?

It means no "operator X only tickets", meaning more freedom for the passenger (they can choose any service on their line, fast or slow), and means that the division can plan its services, paths, etc without having to compete with other operators for paths.