Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Across the West => Topic started by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 12:02:09



Title: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 12:02:09
To view Sir Roy McNulty's Value for Money Study in full, visit:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10401


Title: McNulty Report on the UK rail network......
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 19, 2011, 13:03:51
....is now available on line for perusal at your lesiure.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/strategyfinance/valueformoney/realising-the-potential-of-gb-rail/ (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/strategyfinance/valueformoney/realising-the-potential-of-gb-rail/)


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network......
Post by: Zoe on May 19, 2011, 13:09:13
This has already been posted at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8936.msg91113


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on May 19, 2011, 13:39:25
Thanks, everyone!  In the interests of simplicity, I've merged those topics here.  CfN.  :)


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 13:39:49
Don't seen to be able to open the full report with Adobe Reader X - anyone knowhow many pages?

The summary report is 77 pages....


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: super tm on May 19, 2011, 13:52:01
320 pages.

Found this section on page 208

On-train staff

Driver Only Operation (DOO) is a safe method of operation and improves performance, with fewer human interactions involved in the door opening, door closing and dispatch procedure. The financial imperatives facing the industry, the need to change radically the cost structure of the industry, and the availability of new communications technology has led the Study to recommend that the default position for all services on the GB rail network should be DOO with a second member of train crew only being provided where there is a commercial, technical or other imperative. The Study recommends early implementation of DOO where practicable. Further implementation can take place when stations or rolling stock have been provided with the necessary equipment.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 13:53:31
Yes, that wasa leaked & mentioned in the press yesterday.

Cue Bob Crow then....


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: bobm on May 19, 2011, 13:59:21
As a passenger I am uncomfortable with DOO.

While the station despatch might be possible with assistance from platform staff. The on board journey has to suffer. A train manager doesn't just work the doors and check tickets. He/she is an accessible point of contact between stations.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 14:04:57
I suspect this relates to those trains with automatic doors.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: super tm on May 19, 2011, 14:06:26
turbo


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 14:11:02
On FGW, yes....but auto doors on SWT means DOO to Exeter.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: bobm on May 19, 2011, 14:14:31
What about XC?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Zoe on May 19, 2011, 14:15:46
What about XC?
The driver closes the doors on Voyagers in any case so CD and RA indicators could be provided at stations for this.

Also once the IEP is introduced, will there still be guards?  If the HSTs are to remain in service beyond 2020 then they will need to have disabled access and so if automatic doors are installed would you still need a guard?  You would need to have a member of staff on board I would think as there is no direct access to the passengers from the power car but would this member of staff have to be a guard?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: super tm on May 19, 2011, 14:18:45
What about XC?
The driver closes the doors on Voyagers in any case so CD and RA indicators could be provided at stations for this.
Also once IEP is introduced, will there still be guards?  If the HSTs are to remain in service beyond 2020 then they will need to have disabled access and so if automatic doors are installed would you still need a guard?  You would need to have a member of staff on board I would think as there is no direct access to the passengers from the power car but would this member of staff have to be a guard?
Well the javelins dont have guards so could be possible.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Zoe on May 19, 2011, 14:19:57
Well the javelins dont have guards so could be possible.
But they are EMUs and so the driver has direct access to the passengers or is this not the case with the 395s?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 19, 2011, 14:23:46
It is good to see he highlighted the excessive pay levels of directors.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 14:24:47
In comparison with other commercial companies with similar bottom lines / turnover?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Glovidge on May 19, 2011, 15:55:32
What other European countries run a privatised rail network? ergo is this why the UK rail system is the most expensive?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 19, 2011, 15:57:32
The wage cost would still be pretty much the same.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: gaf71 on May 19, 2011, 20:02:50

'The overall trend to reduce continually the length of the working day and the working week is
unsustainable, and the industry needs to negotiate changes to terms of employment that currently
limit flexibility and productivity.'

The above is a quote from the report, which i find interesting, as the ORR is currently looking at a 'fatigue index' with regards to staff and passenger safety. I wonder if the fatigue issue will suddenly be brushed under the carpet?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Super Guard on May 19, 2011, 20:44:16
The above is a quote from the report, which i find interesting, as the ORR is currently looking at a 'fatigue index' with regards to staff and passenger safety. I wonder if the fatigue issue will suddenly be brushed under the carpet?

Probably...
Quote
Anna Walker, Chair of the Office of Rail Regulation:

"As co-sponsor of Sir Roy McNulty^s study we welcome and strongly endorse his findings. Today^s report has brought into sharp focus the value for money challenge facing the whole rail industry and the size of the prize it must deliver for taxpayers and passengers.
"One of the keys to unlocking this prize is to strengthen the incentives on all the players to work collaboratively to improve services for customers and reduce costs. This includes clarifying the boundary between government and the industry which has become blurred in the current structure.
"It is vital that all industry players grasp this opportunity and quickly set out how they are going to rise to the challenge. For our part, we relish the opportunity to demonstrate how strong, independent regulation can help the whole rail industry to deliver the step change required. In doing so, we will build on our track record of ensuring the delivery of improved efficiency and performance by Network Rail.
"Later this month we launch the next price control review. This process will lead to a delivery plan for our railways through to the end of this decade. We will continue to urge and incentivise leaders across the rail industry to seize the early opportunity this presents to set out how, together, they will deliver a successful railway for passengers and taxpayers at a significantly lower cost."

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10402


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 19, 2011, 20:56:14

'The overall trend to reduce continually the length of the working day and the working week is
unsustainable, and the industry needs to negotiate changes to terms of employment that currently
limit flexibility and productivity.'

The above is a quote from the report, which i find interesting, as the ORR is currently looking at a 'fatigue index' with regards to staff and passenger safety. I wonder if the fatigue issue will suddenly be brushed under the carpet?
Yes ................. that is until a Clapham and then the question will be asked why are staff working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week with a day off occasionally ..................

and yes there are employers in the industry (mainly contractors) that will allow this and there are staff that will work the hours


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: BandHcommuter on May 19, 2011, 21:11:43
In comparison with other commercial companies with similar bottom lines / turnover?

I think the bottom line/turnover argument (and comparisons with other commercial organisations) follows a red herring. Train operating companies are managing a service contract, their income is virtually guaranteed, most of their costs are regulated (or non-discretionary), and they share revenue risk with the government. Operationally they comply with a rulebook and a set of licence conditions. There are many experienced and talented operations managers in the industry who are quite willing and capable of running the service, as they did in the days of British Rail. Is there really a need for a board of directors for each operator? The wider commercial concerns of the owning groups can surely be managed centrally.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: gaf71 on May 19, 2011, 21:39:42

'The overall trend to reduce continually the length of the working day and the working week is
unsustainable, and the industry needs to negotiate changes to terms of employment that currently
limit flexibility and productivity.'

The above is a quote from the report, which i find interesting, as the ORR is currently looking at a 'fatigue index' with regards to staff and passenger safety. I wonder if the fatigue issue will suddenly be brushed under the carpet?
Yes ................. that is until a Clapham and then the question will be asked why are staff working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week with a day off occasionally ..................

and yes there are employers in the industry (mainly contractors) that will allow this and there are staff that will work the hours
My thoughts exactly. As those of us know that work in the rail industry, 'hidden' is a recommendation and not law, if the working week and hours worked in a day are gradually increased, to save money in the long term, how long before we get another 'Clapham'? I bet we get another incident within 10 years.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 19, 2011, 21:59:36

'The overall trend to reduce continually the length of the working day and the working week is
unsustainable, and the industry needs to negotiate changes to terms of employment that currently
limit flexibility and productivity.'

The above is a quote from the report, which i find interesting, as the ORR is currently looking at a 'fatigue index' with regards to staff and passenger safety. I wonder if the fatigue issue will suddenly be brushed under the carpet?
Yes ................. that is until a Clapham and then the question will be asked why are staff working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week with a day off occasionally ..................

and yes there are employers in the industry (mainly contractors) that will allow this and there are staff that will work the hours
My thoughts exactly. As those of us know that work in the rail industry, 'hidden' is a recommendation and not law, if the working week and hours worked in a day are gradually increased, to save money in the long term, how long before we get another 'Clapham'? I bet we get another incident within 10 years.
Much of Anthony Hidden QC recommendations are in ROGS.  The current statutory regulations are not fully covered by McNulty for instance all heavy maintenance such as track renewals have to comply with the CDM Regs, station design and equipment for DOO costs money.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 19, 2011, 22:27:30
and yes there are employers in the industry (mainly contractors) that will allow this and there are staff that will work the hours

I don't know where your coming from here but as one of those employed by a 'contractor' you should note that we have to abide by the law just as NR staff have to (after all NR lay down the rules for all that work on the railway infrastructure).

Being an ex-BR/RT/NR employee and having worked for several contractors in a 45 year career I think your comment is a bit biased >:(

We need to shake up a infrastructure owner that has become very complacent, takes all the glory when it goes right and little blame when it doesn't and has let costs spiral totally out of control.

Let's privatise the lot but have very careful controls in place to ensure it stays safe.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 19, 2011, 22:45:04
and yes there are employers in the industry (mainly contractors) that will allow this and there are staff that will work the hours
I don't know where your coming from here but as one of those employed by a 'contractor' you should note that we have to abide by the law just as NR staff have to (after all NR lay down the rules for all that work on the railway infrastructure).
Being an ex-BR/RT/NR employee and having worked for several contractors in a 45 year career I think your comment is a bit biased >:(
We need to shake up a infrastructure owner that has become very complacent, takes all the glory when it goes right and little blame when it doesn't and has let costs spiral totally out of control.
Let's privatise the lot but have very careful controls in place to ensure it stays safe.
Before working for NR I worked for 3 railway contractors (before that BR) and yes you are correct they do abide by the rules but what I meant there are employers that would allow excessive hours if they were not monitored.  NR have many horrendous processes that are just not sustainable and need to be eradicated but to go back to the RT model of lots of private companies could see another Potters Bar or Hatfield. 


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 19, 2011, 23:01:37
Before working for NR I worked for 3 railway contractors (before that BR) and yes you are correct they do abide by the rules but what I meant there are employers that would allow excessive hours if they were not monitored.  NR have many horrendous processes that are just not sustainable and need to be eradicated but to go back to the RT model of lots of private companies could see another Potters Bar or Hatfield. 

On what basis is NR the one qualified to do this. Now let me think, who was it that was recently exposed for a cover up concerning RIDDOR accident reporting..............

I vote for a reconstituted and much larger HMRI with experienced staff seconded from the existing railway industry (put my name down ;))


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: woody on May 19, 2011, 23:16:06
What other European countries run a privatised rail network? ergo is this why the UK rail system is the most expensive?
Quote from McNulty review summary review 2.3.4 ^Differences in performance gains between Great Britain and these European examples may result from differences in the approach taken to franchising. While Great Britain has franchised all services, franchising in Europe has tended to focus largely on subsidised regional services, with main-line services continuing to be operated by the former state monopoly.^                                                                                                                                             The former Inter-city sector of BR should have been carried foreward into rail privatisation with its inherently much lower operating costs.But we are where we are between a rock and a hard place.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 20, 2011, 00:21:26
If the HSTs are to remain in service beyond 2020 then they will need to have disabled access and so if automatic doors are installed would you still need a guard?  You would need to have a member of staff on board I would think as there is no direct access to the passengers from the power car but would this member of staff have to be a guard?
I very much doubt that anyone is going to stump up the cash to convert HST's to power operated doors (and a form of Passcom which doesnt apply the brakes) at this stage in their lives so they will continue to be crew operated until they are withdrawn.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Zoe on May 20, 2011, 08:45:21
I very much doubt that anyone is going to stump up the cash to convert HST's to power operated doors (and a form of Passcom which doesnt apply the brakes) at this stage in their lives so they will continue to be crew operated until they are withdrawn.
How are they going to remain in service beyond 2020 then?  They would need to meet the disability discrimination rules.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 20, 2011, 09:05:59
I very much doubt that anyone is going to stump up the cash to convert HST's to power operated doors (and a form of Passcom which doesnt apply the brakes) at this stage in their lives so they will continue to be crew operated until they are withdrawn.
How are they going to remain in service beyond 2020 then?  They would need to meet the disability discrimination rules.
Probably by fitting upgraded door locks onto the existing slam doors and inside door handles. I'm not sure power operated doors are actually a strict requirement to meet the disability regs in all honesty.

As there is no useable access between the driving cab and the passenger accomodation on HST's DOO-P operation is not an option, whether fitted with power operated doors or not.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Henry on May 20, 2011, 09:10:10

 Is DOO anywhere west of Reading an option, (under current rules/regulations)
 without major expense ?
 
 


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 20, 2011, 09:20:50

 Is DOO anywhere west of Reading an option, (under current rules/regulations)
 without major expense ?
 
 

It depends on whether you could get away extending the LTV style operation with mirrors etc. Modern practice uses LCD screens in the cabs and enhanced CCTV on the trains themselves and I really actually doubt that the expense of fitting all that kit outweighs the savings in guards wages, bearing in mind the guards can also be used to collect revenue. I doubt the current LTV 'mirrors' style DOO-P would be allowed on new routes in all honesty.


As far as DOO-P on non track circuit block lines is concerned it would be a very brave individual required as far as signing that method of working off as safe is concerned. I do not think McNulty is going to be the person that does that in all honesty. Therefore the branch lines cannot run DOO-P as the TCB track mileage on most of them is practically non existent.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Zoe on May 20, 2011, 10:26:00
As there is no useable access between the driving cab and the passenger accomodation on HST's DOO-P operation is not an option, whether fitted with power operated doors or not.
Does the second member of staff have to be a guard though?  I was on service formed by two Voyagers once, the customer service host was alone in one of the two Voyagers.
As far as DOO-P on non track circuit block lines is concerned it would be a very brave individual required as far as signing that method of working off as safe is concerned. I do not think McNulty is going to be the person that does that in all honesty. Therefore the branch lines cannot run DOO-P as the TCB track mileage on most of them is practically non existent.
The report talked about the acceleration of plans for consolidation of signalling so the days of AB are numbered.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 20, 2011, 12:50:13
As there is no useable access between the driving cab and the passenger accomodation on HST's DOO-P operation is not an option, whether fitted with power operated doors or not.
Does the second member of staff have to be a guard though?  I was on service formed by two Voyagers once, the customer service host was alone in one of the two Voyagers.
However all of the doors on both portions are under the overall control of a guard who directs the driver when to release and close the doors, having observed that it is safe to do so. As such the entire train is under the overall charge of the guard. Furthermore the passcom's on Voyagers are of the sort that do not apply the brakes, therefore the train can be bought to a controlled stop somewhere where the operation of the passcom can be investigated safely. Once the passcom is pulled on a HST it comes to a stop, be it on Royal Albert Bridge or in the bottom of the Severn Tunnel. Totally undesireable for DOO-P and potentially very dangerous, end of.

McNulty has thrown a number of cost saving ideas into the hat for discussion, nowhere have I read that he is prepared to sign any or all of these ideas off as a safe method of working, he seems to want the industry to do that for itself. As such it remains to be seen if any or all of his ideas are actually accepted and put into place.


 


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 20, 2011, 12:56:05
As far as DOO-P on non track circuit block lines is concerned it would be a very brave individual required as far as signing that method of working off as safe is concerned. I do not think McNulty is going to be the person that does that in all honesty. Therefore the branch lines cannot run DOO-P as the TCB track mileage on most of them is practically non existent.
The report talked about the acceleration of plans for consolidation of signalling so the days of AB are numbered.
Which means that in the short term the railway will have to find a huge amount of money to replace signalling which might not be at the end of its economic life in order to remove guards from trains. I am not convinced that the public once they are made aware of the problems that this creates will neccessarily be in favour of guards being removed from trains and being left to fend for themselves in an emergency until the train can be stopped somewhere suitable to deal with the emergency.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 20, 2011, 13:58:23
McNulty has thrown a number of cost saving ideas into the hat for discussion, nowhere have I read that he is prepared to sign any or all of these ideas off as a safe method of working, he seems to want the industry to do that for itself. As such it remains to be seen if any or all of his ideas are actually accepted and put into place.

I quite agree with that statement.  Some, if not most, will not be implemented fully or fall by the wayside completely and there will be massive unrest and resistance from the Unions.  It will be interesting to hear how and what the Government decides to implement when it publishes its proposals later in the year.

I personally don't think we'd ever be in a position where long distance services on the GWML (or ECML/WCML for that matter) will run as DOO though.  But there are some quite easy DOO extensions that could take place though; Reading to Basingstoke, and Reading to Gatwick are two local examples that could be done fairly easily on FGW for example. 


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2011, 14:00:00
All the turbo workings...


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: bobm on May 20, 2011, 14:15:18
I thought on occasions all FGW turbo services with the possible exception of the Marlow branch have the potential to run as DOO. I'm sure I've been on stoppers from Oxford and Newbury with only a driver.  Can't say I've experienced it on the North Downs line admittedly.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 20, 2011, 14:20:35
As far as the Turbo operated LTV routes are concerned, the following are the only non-DOO routes:

  • Reading to Basingstoke
  • Reading to Gatwick
  • Bourne End to Marlow
  • Oxford to Hereford
Which is why I mentioned the first two as quick and easy as the other two would mean changes to current rules/operating practices.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: paul7575 on May 20, 2011, 14:24:23
When he looked at the entire London inner suburban network, he can't have failed to notice that SWT are pretty much alone in having guards on all their relevant trains, and he'll also have noticed that they do not undertake any revenue duties at all.

I suspect that has likely been the main reason for his DOO comments, and all the various reasons that normally prevent its use in rural areas, such as lack of full TCB signalling and CSR etc are not relevant in those areas.

Paul


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 20, 2011, 14:29:58
The lack of a Cab Secure Radio will of course no longer become an issue preventing DOO when the GSM-R network goes live over the whole country (mid-2014).  The southern half of the UK goes live mid-2012.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: bobm on May 20, 2011, 14:37:42

  • Reading to Basingstoke
  • Reading to Gatwick


Is there any particular reason why these were not included when the other areas were made DOO possible?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2011, 14:41:28
Those on a hobby-horse for re-nationalisation can dismount.....from the full report....

QUOTE
21.4 Renationalisation
A number of arguments have been put forward to support renationalisation.
First, the costs of the rail industry have increased since
privatisation. It is argued by some that this shows that privatisation
has not achieved its overarching objective of cost efficiency through
competition.
Second, Government still provides large subsidies to the rail industry,
with some of this money being paid to shareholders in dividends, which
is therefore lost to the industry.
Third, it is argued that renationalisation would create a simpler
structure with a unified, vertically- integrated organisation with
top-down goals and common objectives. This could reduce the duplication
of functions across the industry and allow economies of scale/scope to
be maximised. There could also be a reduction in transaction, legal and
consultancy costs, as there would not be the same level of external
procurement and matters such as discussions with the trade unions could
be dealt with nationally rather than by many separate companies.
Finally, owing to the nature of the rail industry, ongoing Government
involvement is needed to regulate the private monopolies within the
industry. This means it is unlikely that the industry will ever run as
an effective privatised industry.
The Study has considered these arguments and the key issues below.

21.4.1 Cost Efficiency
One of the primary advantages of the privatisation of nationalised
industries has normally been the increase in efficiency as companies
compete for contracts and then aim to make profits for shareholders.
However, in the rail sector, privatisation does not appear to have led
to the cost reductions seen in other privatised industries, many of
which have seen an initial average reduction of 4^6% per year in
operating costs.105 The Study^s analysis of the barriers to efficiency
improvement in GB rail are set out in this report.

Some stakeholders have argued that cost efficiencies have been
difficult to achieve as British Rail was efficient. Smith, Nash and
Wheat compared the efficiency of British Rail with other international
railways. They find results to be inconclusive, with studies ranking
British Rail as the most efficient, others as the least efficient, and
some about average. However, they conclude that there is no strong
evidence that British Rail was any more efficient than its
international peers.

The efficiency performance since privatisation has been mixed. The
Office of Rail Regulation^s (ORR) international benchmarking has shown
that Railtrack^s/NR^s efficiency declined initially between 2000 and
2006 compared with European benchmarks, but has since improved and
efficiency is targeted to match those of the top-performing European
operators at the end of Control Period 5 (CP5) albeit this has yet to
be achieved. The Study^s own international benchmarking of TOC costs
shows that GB rail costs are comparable to, if not below, those of
state-run operators in Europe.

Given the cost reductions seen in other sectors from privatisation, it
seems unlikely that renationalisation would lead to a reduction in
costs. As argued elsewhere in this report, it is the extensive
involvement of Government that has, to some extent, prevented the cost
reductions seen elsewhere.

Furthermore, where Government has taken control of aspects of the rail
system, costs have tended to increase rather than decline. For example:
^ Smith and Wheat (2009) show that where Government has been directly
involved in TOC contracts, for example where TOCs were put on
management contracts or had their contracts re-negotiated, there was
deterioration in efficiency. They found that, on average, the
efficiency of TOCs on management contracts was 1.8% per year worse than
other TOCs. By the end of the period that TOCs were on alternative
arrangements, their costs had risen by 16% relative to those that had
remained on standard franchise agreements.
^ The Office of the PPP Arbiter report assessed the relative
performance of the PPP Infracos, Bakerloo/Central/Victoria and
subsurface lines (BCV/SSL), which had been in public control since
2008, and Tubelines, which transferred to public control in 2010. This
found that since BCV/SSL had been brought into public ownership, cost
performance had got worse, and was moving away from the benchmark range
(although the opportunity for reduced costs was significantly greater).
Tubelines^ costs were examined before public ownership and showed a
significantly improving cost trend in 2008 and 2009, with costs
approaching benchmark levels.

Evidence from other sectors also suggests that private ownership is
more efficient than public:
^ equity-owned water and sewerage companies are, in general, more
efficient than their state- owned counterparts; and
^ between 1995 and 2007 private-sector services^ productivity improved
by 4.7%, whereas Government services declined by 12.6%.

21.4.2 Payments to shareholders
As private firms aim to increase profits, it is argued by some
stakeholders that this drains the rail industry of investment as
dividends are paid to shareholders rather than being reinvested into
the industry. Therefore, this argument suggests that the subsidies paid
for the service are higher than necessary to cover its costs to allow
companies to make a profit.

However, this argument assumes that the cost of services would be the
same if they were provided by a public- or private-sector company.
Private companies should be incentivised to reduce costs to create a
profit and it seems likely that the Government would need to pay the
same, if not more, for these services due to inefficiency in a
nationalised industry. This appears to be supported by the Study^s
international benchmarking of TOC costs and evidence from other sectors.

Furthermore, the scale of TOC and Rolling Stock Company (ROSCO) profits
is relatively small in relation to the overall costs of the industry.
In 2009/10 combined profits of TOCs and ROSCOs were around ^400m, which
was around 3% of total industry expenditure. This is a significant
reduction compared with 2007/08, when profits peaked at around ^900m,
reflecting the impact of the economic downturn. TOC profitability is
relatively low, with a typical operating margin of 3^5%. NR also makes
profits, although these tend to be reinvested in the network. In
general, rail contributes a small proportion to the overall profits of
transport groups and, consequently, the payment of dividends. The
efficiency improvements from private-sector involvement are therefore
likely to significantly outweigh the costs of paying dividends to
shareholders.
END QUOTE

There is more in this vein. One important factor to
note is that the profits made by the TOCs and the ROSCOs together
amount to no more than 3 per cent of the total industry expenditure.



Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: super tm on May 20, 2011, 17:41:59

As there is no useable access between the driving cab and the passenger accomodation on HST's DOO-P operation is not an option, whether fitted with power operated doors or not.

Is this required for DOO ? Turbos operate DOO in multiple and there is no access between the units.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2011, 17:45:14
I think that was his opinion, not a fact.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 20, 2011, 22:49:55
As far as the Turbo operated LTV routes are concerned, the following are the only non-DOO routes:

  • Reading to Basingstoke
  • Reading to Gatwick
  • Bourne End to Marlow
  • Oxford to Hereford

Do the Bedwyns run with a guard beyond Newbury as I haven't noticed much in the way of DOO-P mirrors at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 20, 2011, 23:10:33

As there is no useable access between the driving cab and the passenger accomodation on HST's DOO-P operation is not an option, whether fitted with power operated doors or not.

Is this required for DOO ? Turbos operate DOO in multiple and there is no access between the units.

I assume the LTV units are set up in such a way that the Passcom doesn't apply the brake when operated and the driver on hearing an alarm proceeds to the next booked station and deals with the situation by going directly along the platform to the vehicle with the illuminated hazard light. The distance between stops being more conducive to that method of working than most long distance services.

I shall ask the LTV drivers next week as I am up that way.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2011, 23:19:35
This is, I believe, correct.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: super tm on May 21, 2011, 07:57:57
As far as the Turbo operated LTV routes are concerned, the following are the only non-DOO routes:

  • Reading to Basingstoke
  • Reading to Gatwick
  • Bourne End to Marlow
  • Oxford to Hereford

Do the Bedwyns run with a guard beyond Newbury as I haven't noticed much in the way of DOO-P mirrors at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn.

No they dont have a guard.  As only 3 car turbos stop at those stations the driver can look out of his window and see all the doors before closing them.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 21, 2011, 08:11:07
The main reason the Bourne End - Marlow requires a Guard is to operate the ground frame at Bourne End and to issue tickets because Marlow does not have ticket issuing facilities; morning and evening peak Maidenhead - Bourne End do not have a Guard the drive carries out the Token exchange.   Also during the day after about 10:30 to issue tickets on the whole Maidenhead - Marlow. 

Back to McNulty will he and Hammond have the same impact on the Railways as Messrs Marple & Beeching or indeed what the Major Government did.   Yes there are some radical items even some controversial ones but I think even McNulty realises the railways are a bit of a supper tanker it will take some time to change direction


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 21, 2011, 12:42:37
No they dont have a guard.  As only 3 car turbos stop at those stations the driver can look out of his window and see all the doors before closing them.
I would have thought the platform curvature on the up road at Hungerford would have precluded that unless the driver actually got out of the train to see the doors were shut and nobody was caught in the doors by their coat etc.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 21, 2011, 12:52:39
Back to McNulty will he and Hammond have the same impact on the Railways as Messrs Marple & Beeching or indeed what the Major Government did.   Yes there are some radical items even some controversial ones but I think even McNulty realises the railways are a bit of a supper tanker it will take some time to change direction
I tend to to agree with 'Industryinsiders' view of all this. McNulty has thrown a few ideas up based on his commute between Reading and Padd during the day. Whether these ideas are actually practical to implement are for the industry / unions to decide.

If however SWT guards are sitting in the back cab instead of collecting revenue then if DOO-P comes about (or is being suggested) on SWT then those guards only really have themselves to blame assuming their current operational role includes time to do tickets without interfereing with their operational duties.


However McNultys preferred option for branch lines (four wheeled vehicles with 'Radial Steer', no air con or power doors) seems to me a retrograde step. A sort of latterday AC cars railbus with a TMS screen on it. Passive Radial steer a la class 66 bogie cannot be done with two axle vehicles so I assume some kind of active system with a track train interface (something else to go wrong...) is proposed. Cant remember which page of the report I read that bit of comedy on...


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 21, 2011, 13:05:54
Everybody seems to be overlooking the whole purpose of the review which has concluded (supprise, supprise) that we cannot (and should not) carry on as before.  There are lots of ways that we could operate rural railways at a much cheaper price.  Why not change standards to allow DOO on all routes (the technology already exists).  We don't need to control all of the network from a few centralised places using top notch (and expensive technology).

Time to move on, and forwards and be positive about change.  We all want the railways to succeed (well I do anyway).  As an old adage in business says 'if you don't change you die' ;)


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: JayMac on May 21, 2011, 13:27:25
But if you do change and get that change wrong you can still die.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 21, 2011, 13:29:18
Everybody seems to be overlooking the whole purpose of the review which is to conclude that we cannot (and should not) carry on as before.  There are lots of ways that we could operate rural railways at a much cheaper price.  Why not change standards to allow DOO on all routes (the technology already exists). 

Denpends if you really want to de-spec all branchlines to 'drive on sight' light rail / tramway operations using long wheelbase Parry type gadgets. If for example you take the Barnstaple line it competes with other public transport modes on speed. The train journey being something like half that of the bus journey (Turners 377 bus). If we despec the line to a light rail operation running at 25 - 30mph using lightweight tram train thingies you'll find most of the passengers decant onto the cheaper Turners bus (or drive to Tiverton Parkway or Exeter) due to the doubling of the rail journey time. There will be far less passengers and you'll still incur losses due to start up costs and purchasing the tramtrain gadget, your only financial plus being the redundant signallers and the weighing in of the signalling kit.

Im only using the Barnstaple line as a 'for instance' as I have some experience of it.


What we need to make clear is that 'Change Standards' must never mean 'Reduce Standards to the lower levels found on road public transport'. If thats to be the case you'd just as well tarmac over the branch lines and be done with it.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 21, 2011, 13:37:50
But if you do change and get that change wrong you can still die.
Exactly. The role of rail should be to attempt to attract as many passengers as possible and convey them in comfort, speed and above all safety in modern efficient units. Not wave a white flag, assume nobody will ride trains and stick some cost saving motorised go kart on instead.

Notice use of the word 'attract' and not 'compell', passengers should want to use rail and not be priced onto it from other modes although Rail must of course compete on price.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 21, 2011, 14:21:19
DOO equipment does not need to be platform mounted, modern CCTV and LCD monitors mean this can all be train mounted.  Advantage of train mounted DOO less risk of it being vandelised, greater flexibility of routes of operation i. e. just not limited to ones with platform mounted kit.

The railways have always been looking for the "light weight" trains for branches and rural lines, light weight does not mean light railway.  BR did have those hideous units (still in operation) based on freight wagon and a Leyland bus nice idea but did not work, what is needed is a 60 / 70 mph unit that can run in multiple based on some off the shelf equipment.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 21, 2011, 14:34:35
The railways have always been looking for the "light weight" trains for branches and rural lines, light weight does not mean light railway.  BR did have those hideous units (still in operation) based on freight wagon and a Leyland bus nice idea but did not work, what is needed is a 60 / 70 mph unit that can run in multiple based on some off the shelf equipment.

I don't know if you noticed that but the existing class 14x does all that rather well, given welded flat bottom CWR to run on. Disabled access regs from 2020 being the limit of their usefulness.

I gained the impression McNulty invisages lighter built, less crashworthy and therefore slower units to replace the existing kit. 'Run on sight' and no signals means 25-30 top whack anyway.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 21, 2011, 14:40:40
I assume the LTV units are set up in such a way that the Passcom doesn't apply the brake when operated and the driver on hearing an alarm proceeds to the next booked station and deals with the situation by going directly along the platform to the vehicle with the illuminated hazard light. The distance between stops being more conducive to that method of working than most long distance services.

Correct in the override being available to the driver, although it's not guaranteed a station is always going to be the best place to stop - if you've just gone through Maidenhead, then Twyford is a good 6 minutes away, but it does mean that a position of safety can be chosen to stop the train, i.e. not on a viaduct, in a tunnel etc.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 21, 2011, 16:33:09
What we need to make clear is that 'Change Standards' must never mean 'Reduce Standards to the lower levels found on road public transport'. If thats to be the case you'd just as well tarmac over the branch lines and be done with it.

Why not (change the standards that is)?  Most branch lines work on the 'One Train Working' principle and if you take the Cornwall branch lines as an example there are very few stretches of line on which you can achieve an average speed of above 30mph if you take station stops into account.  At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of a lighter standard and of course with OTW you don't need to drive on sight ::).  You also don't need signalling, points can be spring, hand or power operated by tramway type mechanisms controlled on the ground.

As you have cited the Barnstaple branch as an example, here goes:  No signalbox required at Credition (level crossing becomes AOCL type), No token working required (ERTMS), no level crossing equipment at Eggesford (level crossing becomes AOCL type), lightweight track and bridge requirements, top speed of 30mph, less track and minimal signalling maintenance, extra loops (no signalling required) at two places makes a half hourly service.  Whole Life costs significantly reduced but much improved journey opportunities and end to end time around the same as no time required for token exchanges etc.  I'm sure there is lots more than this that could be done if minds were put to it.

Bus competion: Hmm, I think I would rather use a lightweight tram than a bus and I'm sure that many other people would as well.  But, let people decide what is best for themselves.  Are you sure that a bus could do all of this better?  I'm sure if there was a half hourly service on the Barnstaple branch that people would flock to it.

LETS BE BOLD.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: dviner on May 21, 2011, 17:07:54

McNulty has thrown a number of cost saving ideas into the hat for discussion, nowhere have I read that he is prepared to sign any or all of these ideas off as a safe method of working, he seems to want the industry to do that for itself. As such it remains to be seen if any or all of his ideas are actually accepted and put into place.
 

I don't think that McNulty has to - his report was on the value for money of the railways, not on the nitty-gritty of methods of working that are safe in a railway environment.

I was actually a bit surprised by the report. It wasn't the hatchet-job that it could have been - it identified some valid points and made some good suggestions. Some suggestions weren't as good, and some showed the downside of using outside agencies to examine the methods of railway working.

I'm pretty sure that the government is not obliged to adopt the recommendations of the report in full (and I hope they don't).


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: eightf48544 on May 21, 2011, 17:14:16
LETS BE BOLD.

I agree but i think we should aim for a 60 max rather than 30, to get a faster service and realy beat the bus. Most peole won't like travelling in a bus at 60.

We should also consider any potential for freight beofre putting in more lightweight track. there should be scope for things like reusing life expired ex mainline track on branches. After all it may not be capable of taking 125 trains but ought to able to accomodate a relatively light unit at 60.

Re signalling it's interesting to note that the Germans are reducing the speed of lines to be equiped with PZB90 train control from 100 kph to 60 kph. This is as result of the recent fatal head on collision at Hordorf.  

PZB90 is the harmonised version of "Indusi" the autotrainstop in use on DB/DR.
http://www.marco-wegener.de/technik/pzb90.htm (http://www.marco-wegener.de/technik/pzb90.htm) gives an explanantion Google does quite a good translation.

Or you can Wolfgang Meyenberg's website on German signalling which is in English.

http://www.sh1.org/eisenbahn/index.htm (http://www.sh1.org/eisenbahn/index.htm) Whilst you are there have a look at the 18 apsects of the HLs signal set. Then have alook at the K's which are a simplification and convey speed information directly.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: super tm on May 21, 2011, 18:01:35
No they dont have a guard.  As only 3 car turbos stop at those stations the driver can look out of his window and see all the doors before closing them.
I would have thought the platform curvature on the up road at Hungerford would have precluded that unless the driver actually got out of the train to see the doors were shut and nobody was caught in the doors by their coat etc.

From memory I think there is a mirror on that platform.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: old original on May 21, 2011, 18:30:33
What we need to make clear is that 'Change Standards' must never mean 'Reduce Standards to the lower levels found on road public transport'. If thats to be the case you'd just as well tarmac over the branch lines and be done with it.

Why not (change the standards that is)?  Most branch lines work on the 'One Train Working' principle and if you take the Cornwall branch lines as an example there are very few stretches of line on which you can achieve an average speed of above 30mph if you take station stops into account.  At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of a lighter standard and of course with OTW you don't need to drive on sight ::).  You also don't need signalling, points can be spring, hand or power operated by tramway type mechanisms controlled on the ground.

As you have cited the Barnstaple branch as an example, here goes:  No signalbox required at Credition (level crossing becomes AOCL type), No token working required (ERTMS), no level crossing equipment at Eggesford (level crossing becomes AOCL type), lightweight track and bridge requirements, top speed of 30mph, less track and minimal signalling maintenance, extra loops (no signalling required) at two places makes a half hourly service.  Whole Life costs significantly reduced but much improved journey opportunities and end to end time around the same as no time required for token exchanges etc.  I'm sure there is lots more than this that could be done if minds were put to it.

Bus competion: Hmm, I think I would rather use a lightweight tram than a bus and I'm sure that many other people would as well.  But, let people decide what is best for themselves.  Are you sure that a bus could do all of this better?  I'm sure if there was a half hourly service on the Barnstaple branch that people would flock to it.

LETS BE BOLD.
In respect of DOO...
Bear in mind that 99% of all intermediate stops and Devon & Cornwall branch lines are unmanned and ungated.
Even if you go to the expense of installing ticket machines at all of the stops, who would do the checks on the train?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: super tm on May 21, 2011, 18:56:16
In Japan you can pay the driver at the front of the train.  Just like a bus.  Now that is radical.  Cant see too many drivers keen on that.  ;D


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Super Guard on May 22, 2011, 12:22:06
In respect of DOO...
Bear in mind that 99% of all intermediate stops and Devon & Cornwall branch lines are unmanned and ungated.
Even if you go to the expense of installing ticket machines at all of the stops, who would do the checks on the train?

What happens regarding disable assistance?  Are drivers going to be getting the ramp out at Digby/Topsham/Crediton?  Or are new trains going to be like buses and have suspension that falls to the ground?

I suppose the whole "second person" is implying it does not have to be a guard, but as soon as you start adding anything safety back into an ATE's job, are you not creating a guards position again?

The Government doesn't have to do anything with the report, but from Hammond & ORR talk, you can guarantee anything to cut staff and antagonise the unions will be attempted.

Also - Hungerford does have a mirror on the up.



Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: broadgage on May 22, 2011, 13:00:00
On lightly used branch lines, I feel that signalling could be very much simplified without total elimination.
Years ago "time interval" signalling was used, this was prone to human error and not entirely satisfactory.
For lightly used routes, perhaps AUTOMATIC time interval signalling could be developed.
This could be done very simply and cheaply, at each signal location simply provide a three aspect LED signal controlled by a timer.
After a train has passed this would display red for say 10 minutes, then yellow for say 10 minutes, and then green. The equipment would be self contained and solar powered, no cables to maintain and replace after theft.
Such a simple system would allow higher speeds than driving by sight only.
It is not absolutely fool proof, the main weakness being that in case of accident blocking the line, a green light would be shown automaticly after 20 minutes.
However the risks are minimal with modern trains and a top speed of say 60MPH, in case of accident the guard or driver would have to walk back with a red flag or lamp, and stop following trains.

In 20 minutes, they should get at least a mile away, ample stopping distance from 60MPH.

Not totally proof against every possible mishap, but vastly cheaper than conventional signals and much faster than driving by sight alone.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: bobm on May 22, 2011, 13:24:04
Among the many things that relies on is someone being available to walk back and protect a train. We have already discussed DOO. That increases the chance of there being no one available to act in the case of an emergency.

I am not sure the industry would be prepared to move away from the current system where there is actual proof that a section is clear and systems fail to the most restrictive aspect rather than assume all is well because sufficient time has passed.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: dviner on May 22, 2011, 14:34:38
Not totally proof against every possible mishap, but vastly cheaper than conventional signals and much faster than driving by sight alone.

Maybe a bit overly dramatic, but I think the litmus test for this is -

Would you be willing to stand up in front of an inquiry and admit that you implemented this safety system (because the signalling system is there for both the safety and regulation of rail traffic) on the basis that it was cheaper and quicker?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 22, 2011, 15:33:45
There are some of the McNulty recommendations being carried out already, devolution has commenced with 2 Route Managing Directors (RMD) established Wessex and Scotland, the other routes will be devolved during the rest of this financial year.  This is almost a total U turn from the centric Coucher everything based in Milton Keynes while many things will still be in MK some people destined to be deported to the North of Buckinghamshire have been reprieved.

Even Investment Projects are looking at how to devolve so it can match the shape of the routes. 

As much rests with DoT and ORR to change as it does with the TOC's FOC's and NR often the TOCs FOC's and NR are fighting the bureaucracy of DfT and ORR


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 22, 2011, 18:33:44
Not totally proof against every possible mishap, but vastly cheaper than conventional signals and much faster than driving by sight alone.

Maybe a bit overly dramatic, but I think the litmus test for this is -

Would you be willing to stand up in front of an inquiry and admit that you implemented this safety system (because the signalling system is there for both the safety and regulation of rail traffic) on the basis that it was cheaper and quicker?

Fotunately a lot of rural railways are single track so there isn't much chance that this flawed idea would be required anyway. It's flawed in the sense that rather than the signalling system detecting trains and protecting them this function is transferred to the traincrew. Not a direction to go in my opinion.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: dviner on May 22, 2011, 19:26:50
Fotunately a lot of rural railways are single track so there isn't much chance that this flawed idea would be required anyway. It's flawed in the sense that rather than the signalling system detecting trains and protecting them this function is transferred to the traincrew. Not a direction to go in my opinion.

My other objection would be along the lines of - do we really need to develop yet another signalling system? We would be better off if we able to find a way to speed up the national implementation of ETRMS without compromising safety.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 22, 2011, 19:33:55
At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of a lighter standard and of course with OTW you don't need to drive on sight ::).  You also don't need signalling, points can be spring, hand or power operated by tramway type mechanisms controlled on the ground.

As you have cited the Barnstaple branch as an example, here goes:  No signalbox required at Credition (level crossing becomes AOCL type), No token working required (ERTMS), no level crossing equipment at Eggesford (level crossing becomes AOCL type), lightweight track and bridge requirements, top speed of 30mph, less track and minimal signalling maintenance, extra loops (no signalling required) at two places makes a half hourly service.  Whole Life costs significantly reduced but much improved journey opportunities and end to end time around the same as no time required for token exchanges etc.  I'm sure there is lots more than this that could be done if minds were put to it.

A lot of those ideas are already in place as far as the Barnstaple line is concerned as there are no fixed signals beyond Crediton anyway. The points at Eggesford are hyropnueumatially operated with point indicators rather than signals provided. The level crossings at Eggesford and Crediton are incapable of being converted to AOCL operation due to the roads layouts in the immediate vicinity. The level crossing at Eggesford is already operated locally by the train crew rather than from Crediton signal box.

In terms of the line speeds if you were going to run a half hourly service with 30mph tram train gadgets you would need to provide more than two extra loops as the line speed is currently 55 mph with appreciable amounts of 60 mph and 70 mph running permitted. 39 miles at 30 mph is rather more than an hour even if the tram train gadget ran non stop between the two places which due to the presence of the additional loops (at which trains will require to stop presumably) is not going to be the case as well as the need to stop at at the stations en route. This extends even more if we expect the driver to fidget with the ticket machine at stations which cannot of course be done with the train in motion. Therefore the journey time will increase to rather more than 90 minutes at which point the buses (with cheaper fares and better access to the villages en route) start to gain a journey time advantage over the train. The cranks among us might go for the novelty of tram trains but I honestly doubt that the passengers will be convinced of the "improvements" of running the branch with 30mph tram gadgets.


I honestly doubt that the safety people will sanction running the tram trains at more than 30mph, having seen photographs of the structural parts of the Parry People mover it would appear to have the collision resistance of wet cardboard. A hard impact with a silage trailer on an occupation crossing would destroy it in a collision of much greater than 30mph.

Its not a case of 'lets not be bold' rather than realizing that technology has its place in the improvement of the rail network if used appropiately. De-speccing the Barnstaple branch to a tramway and running 45 seat 30mph tram trains isn't however one of these instances.


As the Branch services have to run along the main line from Cowley Bridge Jn to Exeter St Davids (and beyond) this would appear to knock the idea of running lightweight tram trains on the head as far as the Barntaple line is concerned fortunately.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 22, 2011, 19:35:47
Fotunately a lot of rural railways are single track so there isn't much chance that this flawed idea would be required anyway. It's flawed in the sense that rather than the signalling system detecting trains and protecting them this function is transferred to the traincrew. Not a direction to go in my opinion.

My other objection would be along the lines of - do we really need to develop yet another signalling system? We would be better off if we able to find a way to speed up the national implementation of ETRMS without compromising safety.
That is probably the way to go in my book too. I certainly doubt that the reapplication of a 'time interval' based signalling system with huge safety disbenefits is going to find any favour anyway.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 22, 2011, 21:18:22
In Japan you can pay the driver at the front of the train.  Just like a bus.  Now that is radical.  Cant see too many drivers keen on that.  ;D
And as the driver will only be able to check / issue tickets at stations with the train stationary the passengers will not be too keen either when they find that journey times are extended in order to allow for increased station dwell times.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: ChrisB on May 23, 2011, 05:19:34
Presumably, the Japanese arent bothered?


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 23, 2011, 07:30:37
Presumably, the Japanese arent bothered?
I assume the Japanese line which uses that system of operation is one of their rural ones which is lightly used and not part of their major metro system. Therefore lengthened journey times are less of an issue. I would estimate that the Journey time on the Exmouth branch would double if you used that mode of operation on that line unless you made it compulsory to buy a ticket before getting on and supplied TVM's which never failed.

As far as the Barnstaple line goes hopefully ERTMS will remove the need for the driver to operate the NSTR token machines which will speed things up. About 5 minutes is allowed to operate the level crossing and NSTR kit at Eggesford.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: broadgage on May 23, 2011, 10:59:08
Not totally proof against every possible mishap, but vastly cheaper than conventional signals and much faster than driving by sight alone.

Maybe a bit overly dramatic, but I think the litmus test for this is -

Would you be willing to stand up in front of an inquiry and admit that you implemented this safety system (because the signalling system is there for both the safety and regulation of rail traffic) on the basis that it was cheaper and quicker?
I think that I would be willing to stand up in front of an enquiry and justify this system in low risk enviroments, such as no more than 2 trains an hour, speed not to exceed 60MPH, 2 crew on board.
It could be argued that the alternative would be closure, and that automatic, basic time interval signalling would be much safer than road transport, the likely alternative.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: SandTEngineer on May 23, 2011, 12:01:55
At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of
As the Branch services have to run along the main line from Cowley Bridge Jn to Exeter St Davids (and beyond) this would appear to knock the idea of running lightweight tram trains on the head as far as the Barntaple line is concerned fortunately.

Not quite.  Shared running Light Rail/Heavy rail already in place on the Tyne and Wear metro to Sunderland and well proven over the past 5 years.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: paul7575 on May 23, 2011, 14:38:55
At 30mph with lightweight rolling stock the track can be of
As the Branch services have to run along the main line from Cowley Bridge Jn to Exeter St Davids (and beyond) this would appear to knock the idea of running lightweight tram trains on the head as far as the Barntaple line is concerned fortunately.

Not quite.  Shared running Light Rail/Heavy rail already in place on the Tyne and Wear metro to Sunderland and well proven over the past 5 years.

Not forgetting that when first opened the Metro also had shared running for occasional freights from Benton Jn to ?Fawdon? (somewhere around there anyway).  The Sunderland extension isn't the first shared use.

Paul


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: brompton rail on May 23, 2011, 15:37:57
Running tram-train has not yet been trialled in the UK. Yes, it seems to work in Germany as an extension of the existing street tramway onto existing railways. Here attempts to trial such vehicles on the Huddersfield - Penistone - Barnsley - Meadowhall - Sheffield line came to nothing and the idea has transferred to running trams partly on Sheffield's Supertram network and partly on a freight only line to Rotherham. The Network Rail freight line has to be electrified first, a new (lower) platform added at Rotherham Central Rail station and some new trams ordered. The Penistone Line idea failed because no manufacturer was prepared to tender for 5 diesel operated trams sets. Even then these trams would not have had toilets and would have contained fewer seats than the Pacers currently in use. The point behind choosing the Penistone line was that it contained a mostly single track (2 passing loops) Huddersfield to Barnsley section where driving on line of sight could be used. A mostly passenger train line from Barnsley to Meadowhall (double track section with speeds of unto 70 mph (rarely any freight) that is at capacity with current signalling at 4 tph each way. Then a very busy (about 11 tph each way passenger) freight and Intercity 100+ mph section Meadowhall into Sheffield. So tram-train or lightweight railcars are not going to offer the capacity, speed or savings envisaged. After all Sheffield Supertram has a driver and at least one conductor as years ago they discovered that using TVMs at tram stops resulted in a great deal of are evasion and conductors were the answer. Stagecoach wouldn't continue using them if there was a cheaper way!


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 23, 2011, 16:41:57
I think that I would be willing to stand up in front of an enquiry and justify this system in low risk enviroments, such as no more than 2 trains an hour, speed not to exceed 60MPH, 2 crew on board.
It could be argued that the alternative would be closure, and that automatic, basic time interval signalling would be much safer than road transport, the likely alternative.
The alternative to your 'signalling' system isn't closure bearing in mind that you appear to be referring to existing lines with a signalling system in place. The alternative is to life extend the existing kit along with any rationalisation / removal of surplus kit that can be reasonably carried out.

If your prepared to sign off as safe and back up at a fatal accident enquiry a flawed system with the potential to show a green aspect with a train stood ahead of the relevant signal your a much braver man than me. The crew of any train that comes to an involuntary stop on that line now has to consider protecting their train rather than concentrating on fault finding etc. You admit that the train must be double manned by two personel with PTS etc, which if we are considering DOO-P is the last thing we want to insist on as a result of installing a non standard and in my view dangerous signalling system. Two trains per hour can be dealt with using TCB / axle counters and two aspect signals with seven mile block sections in far greater safety.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 23, 2011, 19:33:54
From memory I think there is a mirror on that platform.
There is. And Kintbury up side too. My ability not to notice things that don't concern me seems to have developed with age!
 ;D


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: inspector_blakey on May 23, 2011, 19:43:32
I think that I would be willing to stand up in front of an enquiry and justify this system in low risk enviroments, such as no more than 2 trains an hour, speed not to exceed 60MPH, 2 crew on board.
It could be argued that the alternative would be closure, and that automatic, basic time interval signalling would be much safer than road transport, the likely alternative.

Time interval working kills people. End of story.

If you don't believe me, take a look back through the annals of early railway history before the development of more failsafe signalling systems, and just see how many accidents occurred then. The history of rail accidents is also littered with examples of train crews, for one reason or another, failing to protect the rear of their disabled trains with results that ultimately proved fatal.

If you want to drag standards of railway safety back to 19th century levels then it's a great suggestion. Otherwise, forget it.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Super Guard on May 23, 2011, 21:49:44
From memory I think there is a mirror on that platform.
There is. And Kintbury up side too. My ability not to notice things that don't concern me seems to have developed with age!
 ;D

Yet...  :P


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The Sleeper on May 23, 2011, 22:06:18
To view Sir Roy McNulty's Value for Money Study in full, visit:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10401

If Sir Roy wished to get a handle on how today's railways are run, there would have been no better publication than the current routeing guide ;D
 


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on May 23, 2011, 22:17:43
Thanks, The Sleeper.  :)

However, in the words of my learned colleague ...

A warm welcome to the Coffee Shop, The Sleeper.  :)

Any chance of a slightly smaller avatar? It's a nice picture of a Pacer in the snow but just a little large to be used as an avatar. Thanks awfully.  ;D


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: dog box on May 23, 2011, 22:33:22
quite frankly most of the Railway Staff i have spoken with view the comments in this report regarding staff as a disgusting insult to there professionalism


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 23, 2011, 22:38:15
quite frankly most of the Railway Staff i have spoken with view the comments in this report regarding staff as a disgusting insult to there professionalism
I agree


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: dviner on May 24, 2011, 00:22:05
quite frankly most of the Railway Staff i have spoken with view the comments in this report regarding staff as a disgusting insult to there professionalism
I agree

Me too (even though I'm only peripherally Railway Staff). I found the comparison between the training times between Bus Drivers and Train Drivers particularly loathesome, and a typical example of what happens when you take an outsider's view to a different industry.

However, by way of balance, I wouldn't dismiss the entire report based on some of the ignorance shown - it does have some suggetions worthy of further consideration, and there are times when it is necessary to take an outsiders view.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 24, 2011, 05:36:33
Me too (even though I'm only perpherally Railway Staff). I found the comparison between the training times between Bus Drivers and Train Drivers particularly loathesome, and a typical example of what happens when you take an outsider's view to a different industry.
Agreed. It does seem that the lessons of Ladbrooke Grove (which was mainly a result of inadequate driver training) don't appear to have sunk in in certain quarters. Driver training takes as long as it does for off street recruits simply because we are now trying to condense into a few months experience which was gleaned over at least two years back in the day before going on the driving course. I notice that the pay levels and training levels for for airline pilots (similar levels of responsibility to a fully loaded HST) have deliberately been missed from the report. Can't think why that would be....

Perhaps the views of the Ladbrooke Grove victim groups should be sought before discussing any diminution of driver training standards and principles....


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: Electric train on May 24, 2011, 06:42:04
Me too (even though I'm only perpherally Railway Staff). I found the comparison between the training times between Bus Drivers and Train Drivers particularly loathesome, and a typical example of what happens when you take an outsider's view to a different industry.
Agreed. It does seem that the lessons of Ladbrooke Grove (which was mainly a result of inadequate driver training) don't appear to have sunk in in certain quarters. Driver training takes as long as it does for off street recruits simply because we are now trying to condense into a few months experience which was gleaned over at least two years back in the day before going on the driving course. I notice that the pay levels and training levels for for airline pilots (similar levels of responsibility to a fully loaded HST) have deliberately been missed from the report. Can't think why that would be....
Perhaps the views of the Ladbrooke Grove victim groups should be sought before discussing any diminution of driver training standards and principles....
When the training time comparison between a bus drive and a train driver is made it is forgotten that a bus drive comes pre trained, they already have a drivers licence for a car, don't know any bus operators who take anyone without a drivers licence, train operators have to start from scratch


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: brompton rail on May 24, 2011, 11:46:48
Well, having endured a bus journey yesterday where the driver was under going training on issuing tickets I am glad train drivers don't receive bus drivers training. The journey in question is 4.5 miles, takes 20 minutes, and yesterday took 35 minutes because the driver had not issued tickets before and had not received training on the Wayfarer ticket machine. The instructor told him not to worry and take his time! Of course our bus was overtaken by the following departure en route - 10 minute service. Thank you First group for you commitment to customer service.

Imagine your HST driver having to consult his signalling diagram before deciding which signals applied to his train, and approaching junctions at 10mph because he wasn't sure of any speed restrictions. No thanks!


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: The SprinterMeister on May 24, 2011, 17:24:13
Imagine your HST driver having to consult his signalling diagram before deciding which signals applied to his train, and approaching junctions at 10mph because he wasn't sure of any speed restrictions. No thanks!
I can personally vouch that driver training / retraining on HST routes and traction thankfully is rather more exacting than that. As is the training for all train drivers. The public expect nothing less.

McNulty doesn't want you to think that though as it doesn't suit the argument that he is trying to make. I don't suppose he has examined driver training and competence issues in any great detail at all before making his recommendations.


Title: Re: McNulty Report on the UK rail network published
Post by: dviner on May 24, 2011, 22:56:25
Imagine your HST driver having to consult his signalling diagram before deciding which signals applied to his train, and approaching junctions at 10mph because he wasn't sure of any speed restrictions. No thanks!
I can personally vouch that driver training / retraining on HST routes and traction thankfully is rather more exacting than that. As is the training for all train drivers. The public expect nothing less.

McNulty doesn't want you to think that though as it doesn't suit the argument that he is trying to make. I don't suppose he has examined driver training and competence issues in any great detail at all before making his recommendations.

Perhaps if he'd grabbed a bus driver and a train driver at random and asked each of them to talk through a typical route, he may have gone away with a different impression of why train driver education and training is more expensive...



... although, who are we kidding - how many of those 320 pages were penned by the man himself?



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net