What could a regionalised rail nationalisation look like?

[Mainsideman]

Moderator note: Split from

BBC News: Rail nationalisation not a silver bullet, says Labour

BBC News: Rail nationalisation not a silver bullet, says Labour Public ownership of the UK's railways is not a "silver bullet" for guaranteeing a better service for passengers, the transport secretary has said. Heidi Alexander told a gathering of rail industry leaders in Manchester that...

www.railforums.co.uk

The Commons Transport Select Committee had a session last week which questioned Peter Hendy (rail minister) and Laura Shoaf (chair Shadow GBR).
It was the first time I think that Laura has appeared in public in her new job.

It's clear Shadow GBR is just an enabler before the full GBR legislation is enacted.
It has influence over the three organizations which will form GBR (NR, DfTO and DfT Rail), but isn't an executive body with resources and budget.
All very positive, but so far with little to say about policy and implementation except in very generic terms.
SGBR is working on a plan to meet the five objectives set by the SoS, to be made public "soon".

Laura said safety was one of her priorities. The exemplar she used was the cancellation of last trains leaving vulnerable passengers stranded.
That's a quite different safety priority than, say, reducing the number of SPADs.
Hendy also said he was the person that decided to introduce the new ECML timetable, as an example of a decision that should be taken by the railway (ie GBR).
Hendy said GBR would be "regionalised", with the context being the devolved authorities - so no sectorisation apparently.
He said ORR would be restructured to adapt to the new setup, but would still regulate access for freight and open access "fairly" alongside the domnant GBR operation.

They mean well, and have lots of urgency to fix the railway's problems.
But it's all going at a glacial pace when viewed from the outside.
Peter Hendy said the proposals for the full GBR would be published "in the near future", and the intention was to legislate "by the end of this calendar year".
It will start with a consultation period before the Bill is introduced.
Laura Shoaf is an impressive and eloquent speaker, I imagine she is an ideal enabler.
Peter Hendy clearly knows a lot more about GBR than the governmental strictures will allow hm to say.

The video of the TSC session (2h10m) is here:

Parliamentlive.tv

Transport Committee

parliamentlive.tv

When he says regionalised could that be regional railways and network southeast returning with the current split up of tocs as subdivisions

 

[JonathanH]

When he says regionalised could that be regional railways and network southeast returning with the current split up of tocs as subdivisions

Regional by existing Network Rail regions would be more likely based on previous discussions.

 

[jamiearmley]

When he says regionalised could that be regional railways and network southeast returning with the current split up of tocs as subdivisions

Which does of course take us back to "last known good" as it were - the RR / NSE divisions showed subsidy reduction, increase in ridership, (helped by Sprinterisation) - and pioneered the concept of total route modernisation to great effect. Depot gossip holds that RRNE actually turned a modest 'profit' (after subsidy, of course - and never achieved by FNW/ATN/TPE) which was used to build the through road at Dewsbury in response to staff suggestions.

Of course, the above is derived from listening to the memories of others and isn't based on fact I have researched - but it would be nice ..

 

[Harpo]

I’d start with the TOC frameworks first. Better to put delivery to customers first rather than engineering needs.

This, after all about the abolishing of NR as well.

 

[Mainsideman]

Regional by existing Network Rail regions would be more likely based on previous discussions.

Yes I suppose this is the most likely scenario. Will be interesting to see how operations are as all tocs current have different operation methods.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==

I’d start with the TOC frameworks first. Better to put delivery to customers first rather than engineering needs.

This, after all about the abolishing of NR as well.

You would keep the toc frameworks or abolish?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, when Hendy means regions he means geographical regions, not sectors. He doesn’t like the TOCs either.

He is clearly supporting (and driving) a return to some form of pre sector BR where one person is in charge of track and train in each region. He has been very consistent in all his statements on this subject.

 

[Harpo]

You would keep the toc frameworks or abolish?

I’d start with the existing major TOC frameworks as most are logical delivery units. Their fleet engineering and maintenance strategies might be harder to break up than infrastructure maintenance boundaries?

XC and some others with more widespread operations would need careful thought.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Abolish the TOCs. Start with merging certain functions to be put under the control of one lead TOC and then when GBR comes along, you can easily move en bloc.

You could also transfer some functions directly into NR before GBR is set up so NR could do them “under contract” to that TOC. Stations and Train Planning are two obvious examples.

The speed of change will largely depend on how much money the Treasury want out of the industry and when.

 

[Mainsideman]

No, when Hendy means regions he means geographical regions, not sectors. He doesn’t like the TOCs either.

He is clearly supporting (and driving) a return to some form of pre sector BR where one person is in charge of track and train in each region. He has been very consistent in all his statements on this subject.

Will be interesting to see how this is managed with all different methods of operation and t and cs etc.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, when Hendy means regions he means geographical regions, not sectors. He doesn’t like the TOCs either.
He is clearly supporting (and driving) a return to some form of pre sector BR where one person is in charge of track and train in each region. He has been very consistent in all his statements on this subject.

I'll look forward to the "this train was delayed on the Western/London Midland/Eastern Region" (delete as appropriate) station announcements then.
To be fair the GBR model is to be cooperative rather than blaming other regions, but you know how people readily go into silos.
The problems will be inter-regional services (XC, TPE, freight) and the non-Mayoral counties with no shout (Cheshire, Herefordshire, Devon etc).
Also in the TSC session, while devolution was acknowledged, nobody mentioned how GBR would work in Scotland or Wales.
The model also look like breaking the long-standing line-of-route structure of the railway.

 

[swt_passenger]

Back in Southern Region days, didn’t it operate as 3 separate divisions? If that was replicated you could call them southeastern, south central, and southwestern. I wonder exactly how much they co-operated with each other?

 

[JonathanH]

I'll look forward to the "this train was delayed on the Western/London Midland/Eastern Region" (delete as appropriate) station announcements then.

One of the mistakes British Rail seems to have made is making the regions 'public facing' when they existed.

The challenge is that the operation has to be broken down in some way, but that should be 'behind closed doors' and not visible to the passenger, not mentioned in branding, not mentioned in marketing, truly one operation. The ideal is to have consistent passenger experience across that structure, no blame game of saying the problem is elsewhere, consistent decisions made at a national level.

To be fair the GBR model is to be cooperative rather than blaming other regions, but you know how people readily go into silos.

Yes, probably dating back to attitudes from before 1948.

Back in Southern Region days, didn’t it operate as 3 separate divisions? If that was replicated you could call them southeastern, south central, and southwestern.

Yes, it didn't help that publicity, such as timetables, were issued for those divisions separately. Essentially, the current splits with now a bit of overlap in the Solent area, and the Redhill to Tonbridge and Hastings to Ashford services sitting with Southern instead of Southeastern, are how it has been operated for the last 100 years, if not before.

 

[steamybrian]

Back in Southern Region days, didn’t it operate as 3 separate divisions? If that was replicated you could call them southeastern, south central, and southwestern. I wonder exactly how much they co-operated with each other?

As a former BR (Southern Region) employee I can say that all three divisions worked as a team because we were working for the same company. There was so much sharing of resources- staffing and rolling stock..

 

[BlueLeanie]

Suspect there's a real misunderstanding here.

To me the "Regions" will be the proposed geographic areas covered by the enlarged local authorities. For example Thames Valley to cover the former Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, & Berkshire County Councils.

So "BOBRail" to cover East-West, Chiltern Railways south of Banbury, and the former Thames Trains routes not covered by Elizabeth Line.

With local Government contracting GBR to operate services, and GBR utilising stock for best value for diagrams which might mean Brumrail running all the way to Marylebone etc.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

I am surprised that some posters really do not get this nationalisation business (which I support) - the current TOC structure is totally irrelevant and the only question is whether a regional or sector organisation is to be adopted for the new vertically integrated railway. Lord Hendy has now given us the strongest possible hint that it is to be the former, probably based on the Network Rail regions. There will have to be some redrawing of boundaries, however, as they do not fully align with train operating patterns. XC will have to be divvied up amongst the regions. As for local control of services like the 'Bee Network' in Gtr. Manchester , GBR will still operate them like the PTEs of old.

 

[irish_rail]

A while back wasn't there talk of the Western region being merged with East Anglia???!! Hopefully not true as I can't think of two less well matched regions (with the possible exception of Crossrail connecting the two being the only link). If anything, I'd merge the Western region with London Midland region, and merge East Coast with East anglia and Eastern counties etc. Basically use the WCML as a dividing line, between West region and East region with WCML and everything to its west in one camp, and everything to the East of the WCML in the other. Southern region would remain separate as would Wales and Scotland.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Suspect there's a real misunderstanding here.

To me the "Regions" will be the proposed geographic areas covered by the enlarged local authorities. For example Thames Valley to cover the former Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, & Berkshire County Councils.

So "BOBRail" to cover East-West, Chiltern Railways south of Banbury, and the former Thames Trains routes not covered by Elizabeth Line.

With local Government contracting GBR to operate services, and GBR utilising stock for best value for diagrams which might mean Brumrail running all the way to Marylebone etc.

There is no misunderstanding. Hendy is not a fan of Sectorisation and his thinking is definitely around the existing NR regions.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I am surprised that some posters really do not get this nationalisation business (which I support) - the current TOC structure is totally irrelevant and the only question is whether a regional or sector organisation is to be adopted for the new vertically integrated railway. Lord Hendy has now given us the strongest possible hint that it is to be the former, probably based on the Network Rail regions. There will have to be some redrawing of boundaries, however, as they do not fully align with train operating patterns. XC will have to be divvied up amongst the regions. As for local control of services like the 'Bee Network' in Gtr. Manchester , GBR will still operate them like the PTEs of old.

XC is an outlier and shouldn't be split across the pseudo regions albeit one may have to lead.

 

[JonathanH]

XC is an outlier and shouldn't be split across the pseudo regions albeit one may have to lead.

The regional operators would just cooperate, with, hopefully, no evidence to the passenger that it isn't simply being run by one organisation.

Isn't the idea for XC that the operational staff work for a particular region and the XC trains cross the country seamlessly with traincrew changes happening wherever necessary.

 

[eldomtom2]

Back in Southern Region days, didn’t it operate as 3 separate divisions? If that was replicated you could call them southeastern, south central, and southwestern. I wonder exactly how much they co-operated with each other?

The London Midland Region was also split into three divisions, which it inherited directly from the LMS.

 

[steamybrian]

XC is an outlier and shouldn't be split across the pseudo regions albeit one may have to lead.

I can speak as a former BR employee when there was far more teamwork and intergration of resources.
I agree with JonathanH in that regions should be set up as in BR days.

 

[Meerkat]

There is no misunderstanding. Hendy is not a fan of Sectorisation and his thinking is definitely around the existing NR regions.

Why, as I thought sectorisation of BR was considered very successful?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it's done right, the regions may exist under the surface just as they did under BR, but a consistent, single brand will be presented to users, with none of this "that's not my TOC" nonsense being spouted.

What the organisation is structurally need not be in any way related to what is presented to the user. To use an example, many McDonalds branches are franchised, but the experience presented to the customer is basically identical between them and you would only know that if you worked for them or were interested enough to find out.

 

[generalnerd]

I think you will need some level of different branding, especially for major services where similar trains are used (trans pennine express trains be regional railways), trains are operated with different purposes/routes (NSE & NNW (did that actually exist??) vs regional) and regional/commuter long distance (it was something along the Chiltern lines, i think it’s the service with the 68’s but I could be wrong but it was intercity branded but also part network southeast it’s confusing)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you will need some level of different branding, especially for major services where similar trains are used (trans pennine express trains be regional railways), trains are operated with different purposes/routes (NSE & NNW (did that actually exist??) vs regional) and regional/commuter long distance (it was something along the Chiltern lines, i think it’s the service with the 68’s but I could be wrong but it was intercity branded but also part network southeast it’s confusing)

Differential branding of service propositions (e.g. InterCity vs regional) is fine, but the sectors should not have different service propositions nor different brandings. They should simply be operational constructs, which is how it worked before sectorisation.

It might be worth keeping a brand like TPE - after all it dates back to the 1980s - just because it's well known. But GWR vs. LNER vs. West Coast (I can't see the poisoned Avanti brand staying, it must be one of the most reviled brands in the UK), no, that should be InterCity even if that's not the operating structure that lies underneath it.

Operationally what it would and probably should look like is typified by the GWR franchise but with the tracks and trains as one entity, though.

 

[generalnerd]

Differential branding of service propositions (e.g. InterCity vs regional) is fine, but the sectors should not have different service propositions nor different brandings. They should simply be operational constructs, which is how it worked before sectorisation.

Oh yeah I agree. I don’t believe trains doing commuter lines in the south v north (NSE vs RR) should be any different

 

[Meerkat]

But GWR vs. LNER vs. West Coast (I can't see the poisoned Avanti brand staying, it must be one of the most reviled brands in the UK), no, that should be InterCity even if that's not the operating structure that lies underneath it.

Why?

but the sectors should not have different service propositions nor different brandings.

Why not?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why?

Why not?

Because literally the whole point of this exercise is a unified railway system for maximum passenger benefit, not to persist in having multiple brandings and service propositions to make things interesting for enthusiasts.

What the passenger wants is boring and reliable, that's all. SBB, basically.

 

[AndrewE]

Differential branding of service propositions (e.g. InterCity vs regional) is fine, but the sectors should not have different service propositions nor different brandings. They should simply be operational constructs, which is how it worked before sectorisation.

It might be worth keeping a brand like TPE - after all it dates back to the 1980s - just because it's well known.

but it's vital that the management and the people in (e.g.) TPE and son-of-Northern absolutely recognise that they are interconnected, with passengers on one often depending on a connection onto the other for the completion of their journey.

Without this level of recognition that people go by train, generally with no choice of operator and not by any particular brand I would stick with an overall regional organisation of services to get rid of the last vestiges of Balkanisation.
edit- basically what @Bletchleyite says above.

 

[Harpo]

Why, as I thought sectorisation of BR was considered very successful?

Sectorisation’s business ethos of getting costs under control was very successful but it was also internal competition where sharing of resources was frowned on.

If a sector wasn’t a route’s ‘prime user’ it got short shrift from the sector which was, especially on timetabling.

Time to get back to a unified railway with customers at the forefront.