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

[WAB]

It means no "operator X only tickets", meaning more freedom for the passenger (they can choose any service on their line, fast or slow),

Whilst there may be some consolidation of TOC-only tickets, there will always be the need to price people off busier InterCity services. This was done in BR days too...

and means that the division can plan its services, paths, etc without having to compete with other operators for paths.

If you divide on something similar to current TOC boundaries, there aren't actually too many overlaps. Where they do exist, most would still be inter-regional under a regional setup and thus have timetabling constraints.

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.

What duplication were you anticipating?

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.

What do we currently have on the railway that would be prevented from effective use by Sectorisation 2.0? And could it not be overcome by including mechanisms for easy resource sharing?

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.

It would make sense to line the commercial, ops and engineering sides up - anything else creates confused responsibilities and accountabilities. I've always found the part of Stephen Poole's book about his time in freight on BR(S) to be illustrative of this.

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.

Does the industry still know how to run services jointly, or is it too comfortable in its silos? I suspect the transition to sub-sectors (i.e. beefed up TOCs) would be less painful than regionalisation.

Production and delivery can be effectively delivered on a regional level - they're just too large. So you divvy it up by area, and then there is not enough focus given to each service group. For the services run by LNER for example, they'd be going through, say, the London area, West Yorkshire, North East, Edinburgh, and north-eastern Scotland. How would you propose that each of these areas are held accountable for the provision of the service?

 

[HSTEd]

p. For the services run by LNER for example, they'd be going through, say, the London area, West Yorkshire, North East, Edinburgh, and north-eastern Scotland. How would you propose that each of these areas are held accountable for the provision of the service?

Why would the ECML be more than one region?
It would be a very long and thin "region" but it is, to a large degree, self contained.

Id suggest "regions" based on railway operational geography, not drawing lines on a map.
Assuming the ECML slows on the 4+ track sections south of Peterborough are run by whoever has Thameslink that is.

 

[renegademaster]

Hopefully the national organization would be the broker between regions, not any of the internal market stuff which I've rarely seen work well

 

[WAB]

Why would the ECML be more than one region?
It would be a very long and thin "region" but it is, to a large degree, self contained.

Id suggest "regions" based on railway operational geography, not drawing lines on a map.
Assuming the ECML slows on the 4+ track sections south of Peterborough are run by whoever has Thameslink that is.

This sounds awfully like sectorisation to me.

Hopefully the national organization would be the broker between regions, not any of the internal market stuff which I've rarely seen work well

In what way? As far as train planning goes, I imagine a residuary group of planners at MK would be responsible for coordinating the timetable on a national level.

 

[HSTEd]

This sounds awfully like sectorisation to me.

Well there would not be like BR-era sectorisation beacuse there would be no intercity or local business units.
Whilst the southern ECML slows would go to whoever had Thameslink other routes would be gathered in with the longer distance services.
The point would be to create self contained units with only limited cross-border traffic.

Thameslink can't really be in with the ECML because then it would cover a rather large fraction of the entire rail system!

There would be no sprawling "Intercity" grouping claiming control over all long distance rail services.
Nor would there ben an attempt to create arbitrary distinctions between "local" and "intercity" services.

 

[WAB]

Well there would not be like BR-era sectorisation beacuse there would be no intercity or local business units.
Whilst the southern ECML slows would go to whoever had Thameslink other routes would be gathered in with the longer distance services.
The point would be to create self contained units with only limited cross-border traffic.

Thameslink can't really be in with the ECML because then it would cover a rather large fraction of the entire rail system!

There would be no sprawling "Intercity" grouping claiming control over all long distance rail services.
Nor would there ben an attempt to create arbitrary distinctions between "local" and "intercity" services.

So, given the example of the Eastern region, you'd propose the following divisions?

• LNE division for the ECML to the border as well as off to Leeds
• TLGN
• Anglia
• East Midlands
• Yorkshire
• North-East

In which case, the XC regional service group would be jointly-run by the Anglia, LNE, East Midlands divisions, the West Midlands division of NWC, the northern division of the Western, and the Southern division of Wales. That sounds very difficult in terms of delivering a strong product for passengers, and a recipe for turning inter-regional routes into Cinderellas.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Dividing production units up by business within Region would be chaotic. Sure, do the commercial side that way but on the ground, geographical Area management will lead to clearer lines and potentially the minimum of structural costs.

For example, the TSGN stations north of KX would be run by the Eastern Region, the depot at Hornsey (on an oversight basis) and train crew depots on the GN likewise but the commercial spec for the service would be a joint Southern-Eastern responsibility with oversight from GBR HQ. All costs are attributed, not transferred between entities.

The aim must surely be not to do everything at once but to make the easy structural gains first and then deal with the more thorny issues (such as Train Crew harmonisation) later. To do that, you need to avoid complicated inter-geographical management structures.

 

[Falcon1200]

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

There would surely have to remain some form of split, or separation at least, due to the number of non-GBR operators on the network? I would therefore expect that regional rather than traffic sector management will be adopted. The situations in Scotland and Wales will be interesting!

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.

Apart from XC's small number of services, and one sleeper train per day, the other operator north of Edinburgh is Scotrail; Who will not be part of GBR! Which is not to say that some form of co-operation would not be beneficial, but more complex to arrange (and probably why it does not exist now).

 

[HSTEd]

So, given the example of the Eastern region, you'd propose the following divisions?

• LNE division for the ECML to the border as well as off to Leeds
• TLGN
• Anglia
• East Midlands
• Yorkshire
• North-East

Sort of, but I'm not sure there would truly be a separate North East division.
The railway north of York is pretty much self contained with only two other connections, one via Hull and one via Carlisle other than the line to the Scottish border.
I would suggest putting all of it in with the LNE segment.

Assuming the T&W Metro doesn't swallow anything that is.
Boundary would probably be either at Metrocentre or Carlisle on the Tyne valley Line.

The objective is not to separate by traffic type, because I'm not sure a clear distinction is possible.

In which case, the XC regional service group would be jointly-run by the Anglia, LNE, East Midlands divisions, the West Midlands division of NWC, the northern division of the Western, and the Southern division of Wales. That sounds very difficult in terms of delivering a strong product for passengers, and a recipe for turning inter-regional routes into Cinderellas.

Well we have to put boundaries somewhere, and I would prefer to get vertical integration of track and train operations to the alternative of easier operation of long distance secondary routes.
And to be fair, those services already are Cinderellas in many ways.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

BR successfully developed the XC network centred on Birmingham NS ('Table 51') after WCML electrification - this involved all five regions yet somehow it would all be terribly difficult today. I don't think some posters have clocked the radical change that GBR will be under Labour - it is not going to be a guiding mind but a directing mind - the fandango of bidding for slots in the timetable will eventually cease. Yes, open access will have to be accomodated for the time being, but I would wager that no new services will be let and existing ones will cease once their contracts have expired. One of the precious few advantages of Brexit is that we no longer have to follow our own failed privatisation model that we so generously gifted to the EU.

 

[HSTEd]

BR successfully developed the XC network centred on Birmingham NS ('Table 51') after WCML electrification - this involved all five regions yet somehow it would all be terribly difficult today. I don't think some posters have clocked the radical change that GBR will be under Labour - it is not going to be a guiding mind but a directing mind - the fandango of bidding for slots in the timetable will eventually cease. Yes, open access will have to be accomodated for the time being, but I would wager that no new services will be let and existing ones will cease once their contracts have expired. One of the precious few advantages of Brexit is that we no longer have to follow our own failed privatisation model that we so generously gifted to the EU.

Unless you are proposing that Hull trains et al is going to go bust as well as the government withdrawing the subsidies that keep freight operations going, the entire apparatus of bidding for slots will have to be maintained forever.

Undoubtedly, Labour is proposing this to ensure it remains in place for a future return to the single market, at which point they will dispose of all the operators anyway.
I doubt anything major will change.

 

[WAB]

BR successfully developed the XC network centred on Birmingham NS ('Table 51') after WCML electrification - this involved all five regions yet somehow it would all be terribly difficult today.

The questions I'd ask are:

1. Did having multiple regions run these services deliver a punctual, efficient and customer-focused service?
2. Does the railway now have the culture, knowledge and structures in place for joint running, given that such services have been minimal for the last 40 years and practically non-existent for the last 30?

I was not around back in those days so I will defer to forum members with more experience.

Well we have to put boundaries somewhere, and I would prefer to get vertical integration of track and train operations to the alternative of easier operation of long distance secondary routes.
And to be fair, those services already are Cinderellas in many ways.

There is an argument to say that Regionalisation wasn't and would not be a truly vertically-integrated railway, as the point in the management hierarchy where both ops and engineering (commercial being much of a nothingness in the post-war era) was so high up as to be worthless as far as sensible inter-discipline working goes.

And to be fair, those services already are Cinderellas in many ways.

But at least under the current system, they have a dedicated management team with the clout to get things done, rather than being a lower priority of numerous management teams. There's plenty of examples of this neglect from regional days - cf. the neglect of the MML as it ran on both the ER and LMR.

 

[Manutd1999]

I would support a modern version of sectorisation, with increased devolution to local bodies where appropriate.

National
GBR has overall responsibility for timetabling, ticketing, track maintenance and upgrades.
GBR would employ all drivers/guards directly in a common 'pool', to operate whichever services make sense for each depot.
GBR also runs a single InterCity operation, combining LNER, Avanti and the long-distance elements of XC/EMR/GWR etc.

Regions
Apart from InterCity, services are separated into ~7 regions (Scotland, North, Central, Wales, South-West, South-East, East Anglia).
Each region could be part-managed by local authorities (e.g. the various Northern mayors could have a role on the board of the "North" region).
Regions would manage their own stations and would have the freedom to introduce their own branding etc.
Service specification would be organised by each region, subject to timetabling constraints, with drivers "leased" internally from GBR.
Regions would work together for the small number of services which cross boundaries (e.g. Nottingham-Norwich, Portsmouth-Cardiff).

Local
Where it makes sense, services would be further devolved to local authorities.
This would include the current Merseyrail/TFL operations and could be expanded to include self-contained routes in major cities (e.g. Manchester/Bristol/Newcastle/Birmingham)
Local authorities would have full control of these services and would be responsible for driver/guard recruitment.

 

[HSTEd]

There is an argument to say that Regionalisation wasn't and would not be a truly vertically-integrated railway, as the point in the management hierarchy where both ops and engineering (commercial being much of a nothingness in the post-war era) was so high up as to be worthless as far as sensible inter-discipline working goes.

Well we can do it differently this time (after all I was explicitly not proposing a return to the pre-sectorisation railway)!
But ultimately we have to stop arguments over who pays for improvements that benefit the railway as a whole.
And I can't see any way to do that without erasing the division between trains and track.

It would be off topic to go into specifics but there are plenty of systems or improvements that could benefit the railway and society but will not be introduced because of squabbling over who pays.

But at least under the current system, they have a dedicated management team with the clout to get things done, rather than being a lower priority of numerous management teams. There's plenty of examples of this neglect from regional days - cf. the neglect of the MML as it ran on both the ER and LMR.

The problem is that those managers will struggle to achieve much because without infrastructural control there is comparatively little that can be done.
The railway will require major modernisation if it is to survive in the long term, and without integration of infrastructure and trains, deep and meaningful modernisation has proven extraordinarily difficult.

 

[The Planner]

I would support a modern version of sectorisation, with increased devolution to local bodies where appropriate.

National
GBR has overall responsibility for timetabling, ticketing, track maintenance and upgrades.
GBR would employ all drivers/guards directly in a common 'pool', to operate whichever services make sense for each depot.
GBR also runs a single InterCity operation, combining LNER, Avanti and the long-distance elements of XC/EMR/GWR etc.

Regions
Apart from InterCity, services are separated into ~7 regions (Scotland, North, Central, Wales, South-West, South-East, East Anglia).
Each region could be part-managed by local authorities (e.g. the various Northern mayors could have a role on the board of the "North" region).
Regions would manage their own stations and would have the freedom to introduce their own branding etc.
Service specification would be organised by each region, subject to timetabling constraints, with drivers "leased" internally from GBR.
Regions would work together for the small number of services which cross boundaries (e.g. Nottingham-Norwich, Portsmouth-Cardiff).

Local
Where it makes sense, services would be further devolved to local authorities.
This would include the current Merseyrail/TFL operations and could be expanded to include self-contained routes in major cities (e.g. Manchester/Bristol/Newcastle/Birmingham)
Local authorities would have full control of these services and would be responsible for driver/guard recruitment.

How can regions have service specification if GBR is responsible for timetabling and enhancements? they go hand in hand. Who solves and has overall say in the local and regional service devolution, they will just end up arguing amongst themselves?

 

[Manutd1999]

How can regions have service specification if GBR is responsible for timetabling and enhancements? they go hand in hand. Who solves and has overall say in the local and regional service devolution, they will just end up arguing amongst themselves?

Clearly they would have to work together, but it should be possible.

For example, GBR says to the Northern Region, "there is capacity for Xph along this section with a mix of fast/stoppers, or Xph if you use all stoppers". Northern Region then decides how it wants to use that capacity. The regions can also set priorities for enhancements, which are passed onto GBR and government for consideration.

 

[The Planner]

Clearly they would have to work together, but it should be possible.

For example, GBR says to the Northern Region, "there is capacity for Xph along this section with a mix of fast/stoppers, or Xph if you all stoppers". Northern Region then decides how it wants to use that capacity. The regions can also set priorities for enhancements, which are passed onto GBR and government for consideration.

Who is dealing with the overall strategy, what if the bigger picture overrides what a region wants? That is a massive problem with devolution, any local or regional authority can shout for something that is strategically of no benefit.

 

[Manutd1999]

Who is dealing with the overall strategy, what if the bigger picture overrides what a region wants? That is a massive problem with devolution, any local or regional authority can shout for something that is strategically of no benefit.

That's would be GBR's role, to ensure the bigger picture take precendence. That shouldn't prevent local bodies being able to state their priorities though.

More broadly, these kind of "how will everything function if we don't control it centrally" worries are common arguments against devolution. IMO they are fixable if we think creatively. Top-down diktats haven't worked for the last 30+ years, so we have to try something different.....

 

[WAB]

Where it makes sense, services would be further devolved to local authorities.
This would include the current Merseyrail/TFL operations and could be expanded to include self-contained routes in major cities (e.g. Manchester/Bristol/Newcastle/Birmingham)
Local authorities would have full control of these services and would be responsible for driver/guard recruitment.

Which routes are you proposing? Taking the example of Manchester, most of those proposed to be incorporated in the Bee Network are not self-contained on their routes, and definitely are not self-contained operationally. Even the north-eastern services, which I always hold up to be the easiest to devolve, would still require full cooperation between Tees Valley and NE combined authorities, and the acceptance of routes like the Whitby line and the line to Carlisle which are distinctly out-of-area...

 

[Manutd1999]

Which routes are you proposing?

They wouldn't have to be totally self-contained, so long as they operate mostly within the metro regions (small extensions could be tolerated). I was thinking:

Manchester - Hazel Grove/Buxton
Manchester - Wigan/Kirkby via Atherton
Manchester - Glossop

Northumberland Line (once opened)
Newcastle - Morpeth shuttles

Birmingham City Lines
Birmingham - Rugeley

Maybe some of the Bristol "MetroWest" routes

Additional conversions of London's inner-suburban routes to Overground

 

[furnessvale]

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.

Now that wagonload is finished to the UK, I agree that unit trains will be what are seen on whatever network system is finally chosen.

Having said that, there is no reason that only containers and aggregates should be considered to use the network. Provided a freight train meets agreed standards eg speed, axle load etc, it shouldn't matter one jot to the network owner what product is in the wagons. Someone else is making up that train before its injection into the network. Oil products and steel for example produce regular block trains.

Agreed that for the forseeable future, anything less than trainload would be best served by fitting into a national container network.

 

[HSTEd]

Now that wagonload is finished to the UK, I agree that unit trains will be what are seen on whatever network system is finally chosen.

Having said that, there is no reason that only containers and aggregates should be considered to use the network. Provided a freight train meets agreed standards eg speed, axle load etc, it shouldn't matter one jot to the network owner what product is in the wagons. Someone else is making up that train before its injection into the network. Oil products and steel for example produce regular block trains.

Oil products and steel can be moved in block trains using container equipment though.
For example, using tanktainers and flatracks. This is likely to prove far cheaper for the railway industry in the long run because it will avoid the need for a separate pool of vehicles.

Intermodal trains, binliners and aggregates now make up ~80% of the freight traffic and this fraction is growing.

At some point bothering with specific freight vehicle types for the rounding error of other traffic stops making sense.
Indeed another 5% of freight traffic is biomass and coal, which have a very unclear future!

Specialised wagons are likely to be cast offs maintained long into the future, and if they are going to stay on the railway it will cause difficulties with regards modernisation.
Independent freight operators could be a major problem because if they stand in the way of modernisation to avoid paying for equipment when the savings will be made elsewhere in the industry.

 

[Matt P]

How can regions have service specification if GBR is responsible for timetabling and enhancements? they go hand in hand. Who solves and has overall say in the local and regional service devolution, they will just end up arguing amongst themselves?

Manutd1999 suggested a structure not dissimilar to the one I suggested. Moreover, as I suggested in an earlier post, it is the kind of structure that a number of EU railways have adopted to some extent. If we look at SNCF, DB, Renfe and Trenitalia, their operating divisions are divided by traffic type, with a nationwide intercity type operator, then regional and local service groups.

The set up of the regional and local operations may differ. DB has to bid for concessions let by local transport associations usually made up of groups of local authorities or a Land government. French regions specify local and regional services operated by SNCF but some moves are being made to German style competitive tenders. Regional governments have a significant role in Italy. Refne's operations division operates local services on behalf of certain Auonomous Communities (e.g Rodalies de Catalunya.

In all for examples, infastructure and therefore enhancements are dealt with by a separate infrastructure company that is a fully owned subsidiary of an overall holding company. The holding company would, I assume, have a strategic oversight role and coordinate the operations and infrastructure divisions.

If Major's government had been a bit more pragmatic in 1993, this is the structure BR could have been readily evolved into. Intercity could either have been sold, part sold or retained by BR but been subject to competition via open access. NSE and RR could have been required to competitively tender services, probably based on their sub-sector units, but retaining a single brand and management organisation for overall strategy.

We dont need to come up with a new UK British structure. We can look to our own history as well as what works well in our nearest neighbourhood and use them as good starting points.

 

[HSTEd]

We dont need to come up with a new UK British structure. We can look to our own history as well as what works well in our nearest neighbourhood and use them as good starting points.

But that structure is just the one the UK had before coronavirus!

It's the one the EU imposes on member states.

 

[HST43257]

I have previously been in favour of traffic type, but region makes sense for an integrated system. Intercity connect into regional and so on. To be fair, it could be hybrid, with regional control but proper traffic type cross-region cooperation

 

[WAB]

They wouldn't have to be totally self-contained, so long as they operate mostly within the metro regions (small extensions could be tolerated). I was thinking:

Northumberland Line (once opened)
Newcastle - Morpeth shuttles

I haven't got the base timetable file to hand, but I suspect that splitting the Carlisle to Morpeth service at Newcastle would be doable (just about). You'd need to think about how you're going to platform the trains to/from Carlisle, particularly if you have to cross the throat. Again, I can't try producing a timetable for it but I think you could pull it off with a general retiming of services in the Newcastle area. For the Morpeth to Newcastles, you would generally be able to stack them in platform 1 with the Northumberland services bouncing in and out during the c.55 min dwell off-peak. Bit trickier at peak times as they would clash.

But you're then stuck with a small operation. You'd need 9 units, which is inflated by the spares requirement. This would be to cover 6 unit diagrams (one of which would be woefully inefficient and only last just over three hours, and another with an early finish as a result). These units would all require maintenance and the associated admin, even if it was contracted out to Northern.

You'd also need to provide drivers and guards for these diagrams out of a small depot covering say 14 driver and 14 guard diagrams per day, again with an inflated level of spares coverage. You need to manage and administer these drivers and guards.

The overall cost of running the railway would increase as you wouldn't save a proportionate amount of money at Northern (you'd only save 1 unit off the Morpeths and 3 off the Ashington, and wouldn't be able to reduce spare units; a similar situation with traincrew). And after all that, you've still only got 1tph to Morpeth and 2pth to Ashington, still using aged rolling stock with little prospect of a new fleet being centrally funded. You'd need to hope that a healthy subsidy goes to the devolved operator as I guarantee the operations north of Newcastle are desperate loss-makers, whether as part of Northern or as a devolved self-contained operation.

And this is for the simpler devolution area. It doesn't get better elsewhere. It can be done, I won't deny that, but to maintain the existing level of service you're already looking at sinking a fair bit more money without even seeing an improvement.

That's would be GBR's role, to ensure the bigger picture take precendence. That shouldn't prevent local bodies being able to state their priorities though.

So like it is now...? When different organisations are involved, there needs to be clearly-defined responsibilities and points of accountability. In any case, your devolved railways will be passing through congested parts of the railway and they'll have to take the paths through these areas offered by GBR, and then tinker around the edges.

More broadly, these kind of "how will everything function if we don't control it centrally" worries are common arguments against devolution. IMO they are fixable if we think creatively. Top-down diktats haven't worked for the last 30+ years, so we have to try something different.....

We have to define how these new structures will work, rather than just waving a magic wand and hoping people will work together and magically come up with the optimum solution. As they used to say in maths, show your working

Rail devolution has worked in London, but the circumstances (and the money!) allowed such things.

 

[furnessvale]

Oil products and steel can be moved in block trains using container equipment though.
For example, using tanktainers and flatracks. This is likely to prove far cheaper for the railway industry in the long run because it will avoid the need for a separate pool of vehicles.

Intermodal trains, binliners and aggregates now make up ~80% of the freight traffic and this fraction is growing.

At some point bothering with specific freight vehicle types for the rounding error of other traffic stops making sense.
Indeed another 5% of freight traffic is biomass and coal, which have a very unclear future!

Specialised wagons are likely to be cast offs maintained long into the future, and if they are going to stay on the railway it will cause difficulties with regards modernisation.
Independent freight operators could be a major problem because if they stand in the way of modernisation to avoid paying for equipment when the savings will be made elsewhere in the industry.

Anything CAN be moved using container equipment. That doesn't mean it is sensible to do so. The payload of a 102t tank wagon is ca. 76t. Put the product in tanktainers on standard flets and payload drops to 60t max.

The market will decide what is best, but I can see no example worldwide of your ideal model being adopted.

 

[irish_rail]

The smart money is on Intercity, Regional and NSE (or whatever the new names would be). Apparently this is what Labour are actually considering as opposed to what may or may not be the better model. I can see pros and cons, but I think overall this would be the right approach, though personally I'd pool traincrew into a "general" group rather than splitting them up which may cause inefficiencies. Time will tell. I just hope if this approach is adopted that they stick with "intercity" as I think it's a classic brand that would be as popular today as ever. "Regional railways" on the other hand probably has had its day.

 

[HSTEd]

Anything CAN be moved using container equipment. That doesn't mean it is sensible to do so. The payload of a 102t tank wagon is ca. 76t. Put the product in tanktainers on standard flets and payload drops to 60t max.

This is wandering off topic so we probably shouldn't discuss it further, but the payload of a 20ft tanktainer can be up to 24 tonnes. A 102t tank wagon is ~60ft long and thus could be replaced with a flat wagon carrying three 20ft tanktainers for about ~72t or so.

The market will decide what is best, but I can see no example worldwide of your ideal model being adopted.

Intermodal is crushing specialised rolling stock across the world! But again, wandering off topic.

 

[Meerkat]

The smart money is on Intercity, Regional and NSE (or whatever the new names would be). Apparently this is what Labour are actually considering as opposed to what may or may not be the better model. I can see pros and cons, but I think overall this would be the right approach, though personally I'd pool traincrew into a "general" group rather than splitting them up which may cause inefficiencies. Time will tell. I just hope if this approach is adopted that they stick with "intercity" as I think it's a classic brand that would be as popular today as ever. "Regional railways" on the other hand probably has had its day.

So three big unresponsive blobs killing investment. Operations like west coast, LNER, and SWR are big enough and customer focused enough - no gain from going bigger.