Transport Select Committee 24 June - Including plans to centralise control of Railways

[AM9]

Reply

Did he give a reason why ?

He started on paper tickets at 11:34:43. He said, "... why is it that half the people have to walk around with paper tickets?", then went on to say how he preferred to use contactless. So unless he acknowledges that many might prefer to have a simple 'piece of paper' as proof of the right to travel rather than having to maybe buy and keep a smartphone working and switched on, and relying on fault-free operating system and application software to do the same as getting a credit card sized piece of paper from a wallet/purse/pocket, the Government could be heading for a rather protracted argument on the subject.

 

[markymark2000]

Pretty well said concessions are coming along LO style but what will happen to EMA in September still to be confirmed

He's very frustrated why it takes so long to get the Timetable changed and he will get that sorted as it needs to be more responsive

Paper tickets need to be eliminated

Timetable changes take 6 months because of the amount of people who want a say in how the timetable is. TOCs need to be as efficient as possible for staff and rolling stock and FOCs need to have slots in place if there is any chance of any freight moving from road to rail. Combine that then with MPs winging and whining because a train has been retimed slightly meaning that 3 of their constituents can't get to work on time. Take out some of the daft requirements in the TSR (train service requirement), reduce the amount of trains on the network and stop politicians having a say in the timetable (once a TSR is drawn up). That is how you make a timetable be more responsive.

Paper tickets should not be eliminated because I know that I for one will stop using trains as much if there are no paper tickets as the main way of pushing people to non paper tickets is 'M tickets' (which I refuse to use due to phone battery and incase you damage your phone. In the blink of an eye, you are travelling illegally) or smartcards (which aren't any use for very occasional travel unless you are using PAYG). Even the most developed rail networks have paper tickets and the constant trying to scrap them is just pure bonkers. You will alienate people off the railways. By all means have other options and encourage them but stopping them won't work. The exact same arguments were in place for scrapping cash on London buses. Why has no one else followed? Because it's a stupid idea and you introduce barriers to travel.

Grant Shapps set to centralise control of Britain’s railways

The new centralised system would give the Government control over pricing and timetabling

www.telegraph.co.uk

any thoughts?

My thoughts are that some parts of privatisation are daft like ROSCOs but when it comes to the actual running of trains, I fully support the privatised approach. Do private companies always get things right? No, of course they don't. Did British Rail always get everything right? No, it didn't. Does anyone always do everything right? No!
Private operators have the advantage of having generally lower costs since not everything has to go through tendering and the 50% 'government boy purchasing' markup. Private companies also specify some details on the trains which I think as proven in the 800s, the government can't get them right.
The issue with nationalisation is that we will have more empty trains running and more braindead politicians calling for tens of trains per day direct to London from their village of 30 people. We are already seeing it with reopening lines, imagine it with the timetables. Nationalised railways are stupid, will not work for public good, will waste money and will in no way at all benefit the majority of passengers.
I feel it's worth remembering the many failures with Govia Thameslink at the start of their franchise because the government were the puppet masters. That is just 1 area. Think of those failures on a bigger scale.

 

[markymark2000]

So private companies but with no incentive to check fares or improve passenger numbers (since they'd get a flat fee for operating things, and just accept whatever state-controlled decisions to change timetables/ fares/ rolling stock)?

The only question is whether you trust the DfT more than you trust private operators... be careful what you wish for!

The only benefit of that which I can see is network wide revenue protection so then more trains get checked and there is more potential people to get checked across the board. Think of revenue doing checks between Edinburgh and Newcastle. There are 3 operators there who they could all check. Saves them being paid to sit around at stations waiting for the appropriate TOCs service to return.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So private companies but with no incentive to check fares or improve passenger numbers (since they'd get a flat fee for operating things, and just accept whatever state-controlled decisions to change timetables/ fares/ rolling stock)?

Not necessarily the case - to prevent this kind of incentive issue, on top of the basic management fee, bonuses are often included in contracts, if certain targets are met. But it then always comes down to the exact wording of these to ensure that the spirit and not just the letter of the requirement is met (c.f. TPE's one-off Mk3 service to meet the obligation to run a loco hauled service by the end of 2018).

 

[tbtc]

The only benefit of that which I can see is network wide revenue protection so then more trains get checked and there is more potential people to get checked across the board. Think of revenue doing checks between Edinburgh and Newcastle. There are 3 operators there who they could all check. Saves them being paid to sit around at stations waiting for the appropriate TOCs service to return.

That's a point I'd not considered - there might be a bit of debate with the Unions over the increased number of types of stock that they'd have to cover - but if the idea is to still have private companies running the services then presumably the staff would still work for each one?

Or are they being literal when they say that "Train operators would receive a fixed fee from the Government which would essentially own all routes and collect fares" - as in private companies will still operate the trains but it'd be a Government employee checking the tickets? (so a different company providing the guard to the one that provides the driver)?

Not necessarily the case - to prevent this kind of incentive issue, on top of the basic management fee, bonuses are often included in contracts, if certain targets are met. But it then always comes down to the exact wording of these to ensure that the spirit and not just the letter of the requirement is met (c.f. TPE's one-off Mk3 service to meet the obligation to run a loco hauled service by the end of 2018).

Fair assessment - I just know how "canny" some of the private operators will be when it comes to such contracts, taking the box ticking approach to narrowly meeting certain service levels - and given the way the the Government have handled contracts with Hitatchi and various TOCs badly, I'm not wholly confident that they'd lock TOCs into a fully fair contract.

 

[markymark2000]

That's a point I'd not considered - there might be a bit of debate with the Unions over the increased number of types of stock that they'd have to cover - but if the idea is to still have private companies running the services then presumably the staff would still work for each one?

Or are they being literal when they say that "Train operators would receive a fixed fee from the Government which would essentially own all routes and collect fares" - as in private companies will still operate the trains but it'd be a Government employee checking the tickets? (so a different company providing the guard to the one that provides the driver)?

I didn't think revenue protection staff had to be type trained? Conductors/Guards would probably be as they are now they do now and monitor ticket acceptance for the specific train if/when they get through.

Revenue protection of course do on train as well as station spot checks and target regular fare evaders around the whole network.

 

[Starmill]

The Department is itself bad at managing railways. This will only make it worse.

A state-owned firm or firms run at arms length from Ministers and the Civil Service, overseen by an appropriate Regulator is the reasonably obvious solution. After the crisis, the firms could even be sold. Of course the government cannot bring themselves to do it - and don't understand just how badly they've done with the micromanagement.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I don't see the benefit to the public of contracting the running of government controlled services to private companies unless it keeps the debt off of the government's books. One of the main costs to TOCs is rolling stock leasing, wouldn't it make sense for the government to own all new rolling stock? Surely with government bond yields so low at the moment, it'd be cheaper for the government to borrow the money to own the trains outright rather than relying on the ROSCOs.

They do. the class 365s are owned by the goverment. Ask yourself how many of those are actually in service earning revenue to pay their way.

To save you the bother it is all the odd numbered ones that are parked up, and the even numbered ones in use, or the other way around.

 

[PupCuff]

The concept of privatisation should have been that Alpha Trains and Speedy Trains both want to run services between Birmingham and Manchester. They both have the opportunity to purchase paths which they wish to use at a set rate (unfavourable paths, eg ones where ridership is generally low, could be offered at a discounted rate to encourage them to be taken up, or be included in a bundle with other paths) and then they are responsible for making that service work. If the customer service is rubbish on Speedy Trains or they don't have enough carriages then that is likely to result in more customers going to travel with Alpha Trains instead and Alpha Trains will be the more commercially successful company.

Instead, we have privatisation in that a very limited selection (see the pre-conditions for being able to apply for a franchise) of private companies work out how they can pay the Government the most money (or, perhaps in reality, lose it the least money) and the one which does the most for the lowest price will generally win with little regard to whether what they have put in the bid is achievable, realistic, or financially viable for the train company. The customer will see little benefit from competition as this only exists in a handful of areas due to the geographically based structure - it doesn't matter if the customer service is appalling and the units are knackered on Speedy Trains, as they are the only train operator that the customer will be able to choose to get from A-B.

I'll be keen to see how the Transport Secretary's proposals develop. I suspect it will simply be a similar structure to the current EMAs in all but name, where previously spending and goals and whatnot were agreed at a TOC and group level, instead they will be done by the DfT. The problem there of course is, the DfT aren't generally 'railway people' and don't always have an adequate understanding of priorities, plus, what is achievable and what isn't.

 

[SlimJim1694]

The word "renationalisation" is being bandied about all over the place here. Let's kick that "fake news" into touch straight away. It's a proposed different model of privatisation to the current one.

One thing I expect to come out of this proposal to reduce and eliminate paper tickets is that it will enable the closure of the vast majority of booking offices. That happened on TFL (under the auspices of Boris Johnson too, no less) amidst much controversy but nobody died and people soon got used to it. I can definitely see booking offices and guards getting a bashing under any new proposals.

Having said that, I think we can all agree that the current franchising system is not fit for purpose and any changes to it would be long overdue.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The word "renationalisation" is being bandied about all over the place here. Let's kick that "fake news" into touch straight away. It's a proposed different model of privatisation to the current one.

One thing I expect to come out of this proposal to reduce and eliminate paper tickets is that it will enable the closure of the vast majority of booking offices. That happened on TFL (under the auspices of Boris Johnson too, no less) amidst much controversy but nobody died and people soon got used to it. I can definitely see booking offices and guards getting a bashing under any new proposals.

Having said that, I think we can all agree that the current franchising system is not fit for purpose and any changes to it would be long overdue.

Booking offices at small, rarely used stations are ultimately unsustainable and as much as they are a useful facility, these are the kinds of things that result in us having higher costs and lower efficiency than other countries' railways. If ticket retailing is stepped up a notch so that you can have a "virtual ticket office" advise you and sell you the appropriate ticket - and no, that doesn't mean hiving it off to some offshore call-centre - then you could get away with closing an awful lot of ticket offices. You'd simply install a camera and microphone to something like the big Parkeon TVMs so that you could see the virtual clerk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Booking offices at small, rarely used stations are ultimately unsustainable and as much as they are a useful facility, these are the kinds of things that result in us having higher costs and lower efficiency than other countries' railways. If ticket retailing is stepped up a notch so that you can have a "virtual ticket office" advise you and sell you the appropriate ticket - and no, that doesn't mean hiving it off to some offshore call-centre - then you could get away with closing an awful lot of ticket offices. You'd simply install a camera and microphone to something like the big Parkeon TVMs so that you could see the virtual clerk.

Some TOCs already have that though I forget which ones.

 

[Bald Rick]

no, that doesn't mean hiving it off to some offshore call-centre - then you could get away with closing an awful lot of ticket offices.

Are on shore call centres ok?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Are on shore call centres ok?

As long as the people are well-trained then yes. Of course this then becomes the sticking point - any concessionaire will do the bare minimum to comply with any obligation to provide such staff with training. "Competent to sell the right ticket" isn't really a concession term that can really be easily defined or, therefore, enforced.

It's not a matter of xenophobia. It is that rail ticketing is a very complicated subject and you have to live in this country to understand even the basics of how the system works, or to know where London is in relation to Manchester without looking it up on Google Maps. Some of the things I've heard from NRE, which has unfortunately outsourced the call-centre to abroad, have been truly shocking and risible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are on shore call centres ok?

If I was setting it up from scratch I'd go for a "virtual call centre" i.e. working from home. But yes, people should have a native-level command of English, a clear accent (which may take some UK dwellers out), and a good geographical knowledge of the UK and of the railway. It might well be easier to get such people as home workers on "odd" shifts - perhaps some people on here, e.g. the students, would be interested?

 

[neontrix]

Are on shore call centres ok?

In terms of customer service, there's a reason BT moved all of their customer-facing contact centres back to the UK. Although I'd hazard a guess that most users of traditional ticket offices don't use machines because they don't know how to use them or find them confusing, so I suppose a telephone button could be useful.

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn’t the stuff on the previous page about “a different organisation collecting the fares” a bit of a red herring? Haven’t we been told that TSGN are on a management contract and DfT take the whole fare box? But it’s still TSGN who sell the tickets and do revenue protection.

Why would that have to change?

 

[mmh]

Isn’t the stuff on the previous page about “a different organisation collecting the fares” a bit of a red herring? Haven’t we been told that TSGN are on a management contract and DfT take the whole fare box? But it’s still TSGN who sell the tickets and do revenue protection.

Why would that have to change?

Yes, it seems a strange idea that you'd propose a centrally controlled system with operations on the ground run by regional concessions but move a subsection of the regional staff to the central organisation.

By extrapolation, online ticket sales would also be centralised and the TOCs and independents retailers would no longer participate.

 

[Dr Hoo]

A railway is a cohesive whole, you can't just split it into arbitrary chunks and expect it work properly.

Whilst I certainly agree that the railway is a complex system of interdependencies it is also too big (in the UK) to be run satisfactorily by a single guiding mind. A heck of a lot has to be split up into functional, geographical and business chunks.

In 24 years with BR (before privatisation) I worked in different parts of GB, at all levels from the station/yard to Board HQ, across various types of passenger and freight business, with various outside bodies and connecting modes, etc., but could not in all honesty describe it as cohesive. Petty rivalries between regions, sectors, technical departments, levels and simply huge numbers of cracks for issues to fall into were an endless frustration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect by "collection" they don't mean the staff, they just mean Government revenue risk. Though I suppose it would be possible to contract one organisation to supply ticket offices, TVMs, revenue staff etc, this seems unlikely to me other than possibly at major stations. They might well consider a single "official" sales site rather than one per TOC, though, as that'd be a saving.

Whilst I certainly agree that the railway is a complex system of interdependencies it is also too big (in the UK) to be run satisfactorily by a single guiding mind. A heck of a lot has to be split up into functional, geographical and business chucks.

In 24 years with BR (before privatisation) I worked in different parts of GB, at all levels from the station/yard to Board HQ, across various types of passenger and freight business, with various outside bodies and connecting modes, etc., but could not in all honesty describe it as cohesive. Petty rivalries between regions, sectors, technical departments, levels and simply huge numbers of cracks for issues to fall into were an endless frustration.

In my experience all large businesses are like that to some extent - and BR was no exception.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Booking offices at small, rarely used stations are ultimately unsustainable and as much as they are a useful facility, these are the kinds of things that result in us having higher costs and lower efficiency than other countries' railways. If ticket retailing is stepped up a notch so that you can have a "virtual ticket office" advise you and sell you the appropriate ticket - and no, that doesn't mean hiving it off to some offshore call-centre - then you could get away with closing an awful lot of ticket offices. You'd simply install a camera and microphone to something like the big Parkeon TVMs so that you could see the virtual clerk.

The problem is that unless a minimum level is demanded by the DfT, then operators will just go for the minimum standard they can get away with, which will have the potential to be an off shore call centre where the staff have literally no idea about the towns and cities that make up the UK where I have to spell my origin and destination letter by letter like the case currently is with NRE. If we can guarantee that won't happen, then I'll be more open to it.

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst I certainly agree that the railway is a complex system of interdependencies it is also too big (in the UK) to be run satisfactorily by a single guiding mind. A heck of a lot has to be split up into functional, geographical and business chucks.

The problem is in Britain we seem to create pointless "regional" divides for little reason.

Like why was it necessary for regional electricity boards to exist?
Most other places in the world simply had a single unitary national operator.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Isn’t the stuff on the previous page about “a different organisation collecting the fares” a bit of a red herring? Haven’t we been told that TSGN are on a management contract and DfT take the whole fare box? But it’s still TSGN who sell the tickets and do revenue protection.
Why would that have to change?

I think the public would find the concept of "the DfT is taking revenue risk" a little complex to understand.
The same as TfL and Merseyrail concessions now, really, despite the private TOC operation.
LNER and Northern are already in that bracket, and in fact the whole system is like that under the Emergency measures.
Presumably the commercial TOCs will take some risk over costs (under overall government regulation).
Might be interesting at West Coast with Avanti at the beginning of a long franchise.
It will also be complex at TfW where again there is a long franchise contract with Keolis-Amey, but it is not under DfT terms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is in Britain we seem to create pointless "regional" divides for little reason.

Like why was it necessary for regional electricity boards to exist?
Most other places in the world simply had a single unitary national operator.

Not sure what gave you that impression - in many countries it was a matter for the city authorities for each city/conurbation!

 

[HSTEd]

Not sure what gave you that impression - in many countries it was a matter for the city authorities for each city/conurbation!

The obvious examples are the Canadian hydro operators - which except for a tiny handful of local operators, normally who operated separately from the grid until very recently, were unified into provincial level bodies.

Hydro Quebec, Ontario Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, New Brunswick Hydro etc etc.

Whilst they serve smaller populations than the UK they operate absolutely enormous transmission and distribution networks due to dispersed populations.
Indeed Hydro Quebec's system has more than half the demand of the UK, despite only 7 million people! Thanks to almost comical levels of electricity consumption in Quebec.

 

[mmh]

The obvious examples are the Canadian hydro operators - which except for a tiny handful of local operators, normally who operated separately from the grid until very recently, were unified into provincial level bodies.

Hydro Quebec, Ontario Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, New Brunswick Hydro etc etc.

Whilst they serve smaller populations than the UK they operate absolutely enormous transmission and distribution networks due to dispersed populations.
Indeed Hydro Quebec's system has similar demand to the UK!

I'm confused here. Canadian provincial bodies are good, but British provincial bodies are bad?

 

[HSTEd]

I'm confused here. Canadian provincial bodies are good, but British provincial bodies are bad?

Canadian provincial bodies covers areas that make the UK look tiny.
There is no national transmission system in Canada, even today.

So Ontario Hydro was, and Hydro Quebec is, not equivalent to a regional electricity board.

The traditional Canadian model most resembles what you would get if the entire UK electricity industry was a unitary body.

A heavily integrated synchronised system like the GB power grid should be operated by a single unitary operator.

 

[seaviewer]

Has the railway as a whole ever paid for itself?

The answer seems to be - "yes", until 1956, when expenditure exceeded receipts. Source:"Facts and figures about British Railways, 1957 and subsequent editions

 

[gallafent]

the demand of the UK, despite only 7 million people! Thanks to almost comical levels of electricity consumption in Quebec.

And the prices are low too. I spent a winter in Montreal long ago. Our condo had electric heating … maintaining a 40°C (or more) temperature differential from outside to inside uses quite a lot of power! And then there was the summer visit, in which people wore a jumper in the office to defend against the air conditioning, then left it there since temperatures stayed in the low-mid 20s right through the night! Remarkable place.

 

[gallafent]

Not sure what gave you that impression - in many countries it was a matter for the city authorities for each city/conurbation!

… and then there's Japan where the frequency differs between east and west!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#National_grid “Unlike most other industrial countries, Japan doesn't have a single national grid but instead has separate eastern and western grids. The standard voltage at power outlets is 100 V, but the grids operate at different frequencies: 50 Hz in Eastern Japan and 60 Hz in Western Japan.”

Also, as I just learned from the same wikipedia page, 10 regional regulated companies provide electricity to the market in Japan, not a single national operator.