Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for 18 months.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

From Rail News

THE long-awaited Rail Review commissioned from Keith Williams by the Department for Transport in the autumn of 2018 has gained a new official co-author and title.

The Review has been repeatedly delayed and is now at least 18 months behind schedule, with the Covid-19 pandemic adding to the hold up. It is known that it sets out proposals to replace franchises, although this has already happened because of the pandemic and its effect on railway finances.

It had also been revealed that transport secretary Grant Shapps has been helping to bring the Review up to date to reflect the possible effects of the pandemic on the future railway, and his contribution has now been formally recognised.

Answering a question in the House of Commons on 20 April, transport minister for the environment Rachel Maclean said: ‘The Government is committed to ensuring an efficient, affordable and environmentally friendly public transport system. This is why on 15 March we published a National Bus Strategy which will improve bus services for passengers across England, making them more reliable, environmentally friendly and better co-ordinated with simpler fares. We are also currently preparing the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail to deliver a more efficient, affordable and greener rail network, and a bold and ambitious Transport Decarbonisation Plan to achieve net zero emissions.’

There is still no date for the Review, now the ‘Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail’, to be published. Answering another question in the same session, rail minister Chris Heaton-Harris responded: ‘The government intends on publishing a White Paper with details of its plans for rail reform soon.’

It's a rail project - of course it's 18 months late.  I wonder what it was expected to cost to produces and what it has actually cost.

[grahame]

From City am yesterday

Ministers are set to reveal the biggest overhaul of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)’s rail system in three decades, with reforms including the introduction of flexible season tickets and pay-as-you-go travel across the network.

The coming week will see the publication of a long-awaited white paper on the future of the country’s rail network, the Times reported.

Interesting choice of ticketing options as their lead paragraphs.   It goes on to include much, much more:

Chief among the reforms, the day-to-day running of the rail system will be brought under the control of a new body, independent of the Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)).

The body will incorporate existing organisation Network Rail, with its current chair Sir Peter Hendy and chief executive Andrew Haines reportedly to be charged with setting it up.

It will be given greater sway over the existing rail franchises, with the power to change timetables and even out services.

In addition, it will be responsible to agreeing new “concession”-style deals with train operating companies, which have been propped up through billions government support for the last year.

The article then sets context ...

Such a model, as is already used on the London Overground, will allow the body to give firms financial incentives to run services on time, while also being able to punish them for dirty trains and overcrowding.

The changes will mark the most fundamental reform to the running of the UK’s trains since the network was privatised in the 90s.

It comes after a year in which passenger numbers have dwindled to historically low levels due to the coronavirus pandemic.

A number of the reforms are designed to get passengers back onto trains after the pandemic. The Times said that rail firms would be forced to introduce two to three day season tickets for those workers who will not travel to the office everyday.

... and ends with a hint that the story is as yet unsubstantiated ...

The Department for Transport (DfT) declined to comment

Not sure of The Times' sources but likely not to be too far out.

[Lee]

Well, if true, then that means what I have been hearing is 50% true, in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) will only want a very arms-length relationship with the rail network in future, and 50% wishful thinking on the part of certain special advisors who appear to have been briefing on what they wanted to see - ie sectorisation with the business units leading and Network Rail following - and ending up with the opposite - ie sectorisation with Network Rail leading and the business units following.

It wont surprise you to hear what my view of that would be - That if you want to revive a railway already weakened by historical strategy failures before Covid and Hitachi came along, then the last thing you want to do is create Strategic Rail Authority Mark 2 with Network Rail in overall control of that body.

Anyone who has read Network Rail Business Plans over the years knows exactly what their version of "even out services" would entail, and I am afraid that I see nothing but big trouble ahead.

[Electric train]

From City am yesterday

Ministers are set to reveal the biggest overhaul of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)’s rail system in three decades, with reforms including the introduction of flexible season tickets and pay-as-you-go travel across the network.

The coming week will see the publication of a long-awaited white paper on the future of the country’s rail network, the Times reported.

Interesting choice of ticketing options as their lead paragraphs.   It goes on to include much, much more:

Chief among the reforms, the day-to-day running of the rail system will be brought under the control of a new body, independent of the Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)).

The body will incorporate existing organisation Network Rail, with its current chair Sir Peter Hendy and chief executive Andrew Haines reportedly to be charged with setting it up.

It will be given greater sway over the existing rail franchises, with the power to change timetables and even out services.

In addition, it will be responsible to agreeing new “concession”-style deals with train operating companies, which have been propped up through billions government support for the last year.

The article then sets context ...

Such a model, as is already used on the London Overground, will allow the body to give firms financial incentives to run services on time, while also being able to punish them for dirty trains and overcrowding.

The changes will mark the most fundamental reform to the running of the UK’s trains since the network was privatised in the 90s.

It comes after a year in which passenger numbers have dwindled to historically low levels due to the coronavirus pandemic.

A number of the reforms are designed to get passengers back onto trains after the pandemic. The Times said that rail firms would be forced to introduce two to three day season tickets for those workers who will not travel to the office everyday.

... and ends with a hint that the story is as yet unsubstantiated ...

The Department for Transport (DfT) declined to comment

Not sure of The Times' sources but likely not to be too far out.

aka formally known as British Rail    has a political party made a U-turn 

The privatisation option most favoured by BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) in the 90's was very close to what is above quote

[Lee]

aka formally known as British Rail    has a political party made a U-turn 

The privatisation option most favoured by BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) in the 90's was very close to what is above quote

Were that were so...Unfortunately, it is nothing more than the rebirth of the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about), which is likely to have to operate in an even worse funding climate than the one that contributed to the original SRA's overall ineptness and eventual downfall.

And if that wasn't bad enough, putting Network Rail in overall charge of the new SRA with "the power to change timetables and even out services", will not only spell the end of fantasy rail projects such as Go-op that need to secure potentially "interfering and conflicting" main line running rights, but also the end of any hopes of credible proposals with sound business cases such Bristol-Oxford-Birmingham and Southampton-Oxford-Birmingham that are likely to be viewed in the same negative light, and were always summarily dismissed by the original SRA as a result.

It also thrusts services such as the TransWilts into an uncertain future. As well as likely being restricted in future development terms to Westbury-Swindon and no further, you may recall that the original IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) mainline timetables devised by Network Rail promoted the needs of the expresses absolutely to the forefront, with the Westbury-Swindon "locals" having to fit in around them, sometimes at very inconvenient timings. It was only because direction from above Network Rail was possible that this was addressed adequately in the final timetables, and the fear must be that a Network Rail that feels unrestrained in that regard will also feel free to treat services such as the TransWilts as they see fit - "You will get what you are given" - with obvious consequences for passenger numbers and overall future prospects.

Add to that the fact that an unrestrained Network Rail will likely direct its new puppet to remove "unnecessary and in the way" main line stations such as Pilning, Appleford et al at the earliest opportunity, and it's not hard to see where we could ultimately end up.

Frankly, the whole idea sounds like an ill-thought out disaster.

[eightonedee]

Forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure I understand what is being proposed apart from more reorganisation at the top level (someone will be stirring the alphabet soup of acronyms no doubt). Does it simply mean that the new concession holders will no longer lease the trains and those stations they mainly or exclusively run, but we will still be left with a system of time limited renewable operating agreements, a system that has to work out if delay was due to the track infrastructure provider or the train operator to attribute financial penalties, with the risk of (for example) trains missing intermediate stops so that they arrive "on time" for punctuality penalty purposes?  Any welcome change in ticketing flexibility does not require any fundamental change in the structure of how commercial risk is attributed in the industry, which is what I guess this is really all about .

Beyond a greater flexibility in rolling stock use, I am not sure that we passengers will notice much change. Only a policy wonk or an economist could believe this will attract people back to train travel. That will only be a combination of people generally feeling more comfortable with the safety of public transport (hopefully a matter of time), a reversion to traditional working patterns (which is the big imponderable at present, and the real "fundamental change" though not a reform since privatisation) and the cost, quality and convenience of the service.

The vast majority of people do not care about the shape of the organogram of the management of the railway. Realistically if the Government is funding the investment they will interfere, and actually as tax payers we probably ought to expect them to do so. And in the case of Stephen Byers and Chris Grayling, actually some political careers have come to grief partly as a result of problems with railways "on their watch". Will the new system really change any of this?

Sorry, while posting this I have just seen Lee's better informed post. I hope that his concerns are not borne out

[Electric train]

Forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure I understand what is being proposed apart from more reorganisation at the top level (someone will be stirring the alphabet soup of acronyms no doubt). Does it simply mean that the new concession holders will no longer lease the trains and those stations they mainly or exclusively run, but we will still be left with a system of time limited renewable operating agreements, a system that has to work out if delay was due to the track infrastructure provider or the train operator to attribute financial penalties, with the risk of (for example) trains missing intermediate stops so that they arrive "on time" for punctuality penalty purposes?  Any welcome change in ticketing flexibility does not require any fundamental change in the structure of how commercial risk is attributed in the industry, which is what I guess this is really all about .

Beyond a greater flexibility in rolling stock use, I am not sure that we passengers will notice much change. Only a policy wonk or an economist could believe this will attract people back to train travel. That will only be a combination of people generally feeling more comfortable with the safety of public transport (hopefully a matter of time), a reversion to traditional working patterns (which is the big imponderable at present, and the real "fundamental change" though not a reform since privatisation) and the cost, quality and convenience of the service.

The vast majority of people do not care about the shape of the organogram of the management of the railway. Realistically if the Government is funding the investment they will interfere, and actually as tax payers we probably ought to expect them to do so. And in the case of Stephen Byers and Chris Grayling, actually some political careers have come to grief partly as a result of problems with railways "on their watch". Will the new system really change any of this?

Sorry, while posting this I have just seen Lee's better informed post. I hope that his concerns are not borne out

The pathway is, I believe, to integrate Network Rail and TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s on a Region / Route bases; with the Handy / Haines executive overseeing the performance of the 'operators' of a Region or Route. 

The Regions / routes being more 'vertically integrated' something the rail privatisation decimated   

[IndustryInsider]

There is no perfect solution.  We just have to hope this is better that what went before, which was fairly universally panned.

[grahame]

From The Guardian

UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railways brace for shake-up and cuts as long-overdue review arrives

Biggest change since 90s privatisation looks to halt franchise failures, reform fares and, for the Treasury, slash costs

Sweeping reforms to bring the railway’s track and trains together under a new Great British Railways will be set out this week – but reforms of fares will be limited, with the industry braced to have its budget slashed.

The Treasury is understood to be demanding cost cuts of between 10% and 20% after expanding its subsidy to the rail industry by £10bn during the Covid-19 pandemic as fare revenue dropped away. Unions have warned they will fight cuts to maintenance budgets and workforce terms and conditions.

The long-delayed – and heavily re-edited - review of the industry, initially led by Keith Williams, is expected to be published as a white paper on Thursday. ...

[Lee]

From The Guardian

UK^▸ (United Kingdom) railways brace for shake-up and cuts as long-overdue review arrives

Biggest change since 90s privatisation looks to halt franchise failures, reform fares and, for the Treasury, slash costs

From that Treasury perspective bringing in Network Rail to design the vehicle to deliver the reforms does make perfect sense.

Look at it this way - If you are a government that needs to make a 10-20% cut in the rail budget, but dont want to be associated with the potential negative consequences such as closures, service withdrawals or bustitutions, why not call on the leaders of the one rail industry organisation that is both likely to on board with that as a concept, and not really have a problem with how that might be viewed by either the rail travelling or wider public, because it has made an art form of ignoring those views over the years.

[Electric train]

Both Sir Peter Hendy and Andrew Haines have a track record of changing the way public sector transport operates.  The is a high risk of very disruptive industrial action by the Trades Unions due to the (quite well founded) leaked information form the Rail Recovery Group of up to 25% job cuts

[Lee]

Both Sir Peter Hendy and Andrew Haines have a track record of changing the way public sector transport operates.  The is a high risk of very disruptive industrial action by the Trades Unions due to the (quite well founded) leaked information form the Rail Recovery Group of up to 25% job cuts

In terms of Sir Peter Hendy, the question is whether his involvement changes the way public sector transport operates in a positive or negative way, and there has been plenty of evidence in both directions on that front with him. It is true that I have a lot of time for Andrew Haines, and have praised him publicly in more than one post on this forum.

However, neither of them has had to operate in a financial climate anywhere near as hostile as the one they are about to face, and I think even the very best would struggle to come out the other side in a positive manner.

The suggestion - in overall terms rather than me putting words into Electric train's mouth - is that the plan is for Network Rail leaders to wield the axe on large swathes of their own budget and workforce, rather than spreading at least some of that "pain" by taking the opportunity they will finally have of cutting out the kind of "unnecessary and in the way" stations and services that successive Network Rail Business Plans have shown a clear loathing and contempt for.

You'll forgive me if I dont find that suggestion likely to be realistic in practice.

[Electric train]

Both Sir Peter Hendy and Andrew Haines have a track record of changing the way public sector transport operates.  The is a high risk of very disruptive industrial action by the Trades Unions due to the (quite well founded) leaked information form the Rail Recovery Group of up to 25% job cuts

In terms of Sir Peter Hendy, the question is whether his involvement changes the way public sector transport operates in a positive or negative way, and there has been plenty of evidence in both directions on that front with him. It is true that I have a lot of time for Andrew Haines, and have praised him publicly in more than one post on this forum.

However, neither of them has had to operate in a financial climate anywhere near as hostile as the one they are about to face, and I think even the very best would struggle to come out the other side in a positive manner.

Both have a record either in TfL^» (Transport for London - about) or CAA^» (Civil Aviation Authority - about) of single maimedly pushing change through, this will cause friction whether the friction causes combustion time will tell

The suggestion - in overall terms rather than me putting words into Electric train's mouth - is that the plan is for Network Rail leaders to wield the axe on large swathes of their own budget and workforce, rather than spreading at least some of that "pain" by taking the opportunity they will finally have of cutting out the kind of "unnecessary and in the way" stations and services that successive Network Rail Business Plans have shown a clear loathing and contempt for.

You'll forgive me if I dont find that suggestion likely to be realistic in practice.

Lines and stations are unlikely to close, reduction in staff yes, reduction in services especially where 2 or more TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) are competing for passengers on the same route, could be argued that this removes passenger choice and competition hence reducing fares.

The railways competitors are not within but external, air, bus and car.  The railways should not be fighting internally for custom but taking on air, bus and car's by being punctual, reliable, cost efficent and an overall pleasant experience .........................

Que the music ............ This is the age of the train

[Lee]

The suggestion - in overall terms rather than me putting words into Electric train's mouth - is that the plan is for Network Rail leaders to wield the axe on large swathes of their own budget and workforce, rather than spreading at least some of that "pain" by taking the opportunity they will finally have of cutting out the kind of "unnecessary and in the way" stations and services that successive Network Rail Business Plans have shown a clear loathing and contempt for.

You'll forgive me if I dont find that suggestion likely to be realistic in practice.

Lines and stations are unlikely to close, reduction in staff yes, reduction in services especially where 2 or more TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) are competing for passengers on the same route, could be argued that this removes passenger choice and competition hence reducing fares.

The railways competitors are not within but external, air, bus and car.  The railways should not be fighting internally for custom but taking on air, bus and car's by being punctual, reliable, cost efficent and an overall pleasant experience .........................

Que the music ............ This is the age of the train

On the likelihood of lines and stations closing, we will have to agree to disagree. I have outlined a couple of likely early targets in a previous post, and given the somewhat brutal recent demonstrations of just how low down the pecking order the Barton and Rose Hill Marple lines are, I wouldn't be sitting very comfortably if I were a supporter or passenger of those types of line either.

Interesting that we concur on the likely loss of rail services, and very interesting that you feel that this could particularly arise on "competing" services. How exactly does one define a "competing" service? A number of members will recall when in 2006 the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) tried to remove  SWT^▸ (South West Trains) Bristol-Waterloo services on those grounds, and the tsunami of opposition and swift DfT climbdown that soon followed.

I personally think that rail services that truly compete with eachother - ie same end to end and destinations in between - have been largely ripped out of the system over successive franchise changes, and to pursue that approach would risk ending up in extreme and dangerous territory. For example, you wouldn't - or at least I wouldn't - remove either Avanti West Coast vs Chiltern London-Birmingham services. Or GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) vs Chiltern London-Oxford services. Or GWR vs SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) London-Exeter services - would you? That really would take us back in time to the most unwise excesses of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))-era strategy, and even Network Rail would struggle to dodge the modern-day court of public opinion on that one.

Interesting too, who you see rail's competitors as. I think it would be very unwise to get into a head to head rail vs bus battle at a time when buses are to receive significant new funding and rail is to face substantial funding cuts. Instead, I am working alongside grahame and others through initiatives such as Option 24/7 to integrate rail, bus, active travel cycling and walking, and even to a certain extent car as well, as far as possible. That is exactly what we try and encourage over here in Brittany too. Quote from the Saint Brieuc - where part of my work is based - Urban Travel Plan:

"Our territory is attractive, constantly evolving with new housing and new activities taking hold: The need for travel (whether on foot, by bicycle, by public transport or by car) is increasing. Air quality has been affected, with recent years, a deterioration which shows the need to change mobility practices.

Many objectives are to be achieved, including:
- Guaranteeing good accessibility for everyone and the safety of everyone when traveling;
- Preserve the environment and improve the living environment;
- Foster coherence between urbanization and travel offer.

The general objective of this project is not to demonize the car, but to ensure that the use of it is neither exclusive nor an obstacle to the practice of other modes of travel, such as is too often the case today. With its Urban Travel Plan, Saint-Brieuc Armor Agglomeration affirms the desire to move from a system where the automobile is dominant to a sustainable system which is part of a complementarity between the different modes of transport."

On The Age of The Train, I think I would stop at the music, as you will have rather more than Laurence and co to deal with if you try and bring back the ads themselves...

You have certainly put the opposite side to mine in this debate very eloquently though, and it will be most interesting to see which of us gets closest to how things turn out.

[Electric train]

I personally think that rail services that truly compete with eachother - ie same end to end and destinations in between - have been largely ripped out of the system over successive franchise changes, and to pursue that approach would risk ending up in extreme and dangerous territory. For example, you wouldn't - or at least I wouldn't - remove either Avanti West Coast vs Chiltern London-Birmingham services. Or GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) vs Chiltern London-Oxford services. Or GWR vs SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) London-Exeter services - would you? That really would take us back in time to the most unwise excesses of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))-era strategy, and even Network Rail would struggle to dodge the modern-day court of public opinion on that one.

Interesting too, who you see rail's competitors as. I think it would be very unwise to get into a head to head rail vs bus battle at a time when buses are to receive significant new funding and rail is to face substantial funding cuts. Instead, I am working alongside grahame and others through initiatives such as Option 24/7 to integrate rail, bus, active travel cycling and walking, and even to a certain extent car as well, as far as possible. That is exactly what we try and encourage over here in Brittany too. Quote from the Saint Brieuc - where part of my work is based - Urban Travel Plan:

I do not feel that a SWR Bristol - Waterloo service is competing with GWR Bristol - Paddington service as they serve different communities.

It is more likely on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) where Avanti and London Midland compete and on certain parts of the East Cost Mainline.

It is overturning the Governments previous mantra of competition is king

_{[Edit - Fix quote - Red Squirrel]}