Thousands of jobs ‘could go as part of UK government’s rail shake-up’

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

From The Guardian

Reports suggest cuts in Great Britain would include removing ‘duplication’ of teams, as well job losses at HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))

Thousands of jobs could go as part of the government’s planned shake-up of Britain’s railway industry, according to a report.

Under Labour’s plans, a state-owned company, Great British Railways, will run the railway and take every train operator into public ownership as existing contracts expire.

Removing “duplication” of teams, as well as job cuts at the HS2 rail line linking London and Birmingham, will result in several thousand job losses, the Sunday Times reported, quoting an unnamed source.

The Department for Transport and the Treasury hope that bringing track and train together under the same organisation will bring cost savings.

A DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) spokesperson said: “We are delivering the biggest overhaul to our railways in a generation, creating a publicly owned, passenger-focused Great British Railways that will create exciting job opportunities, both for existing staff and those looking to get into the industry.

“Our number one priority is to provide passengers with the reliable, accessible, and more affordable services they deserve, and our plans will save taxpayers up to an estimated £150m every year in fees alone.”

Earlier this month, Keir Starmer announced the abolition of NHS England, “the biggest quango in the world”, with the loss of 10,000 roles, to cut bureaucracy. The government is expected to take a similar approach to rail.

Most of the job cuts are likely to be in back-office roles. Among organisations that could be abolished are Transport Focus, a watchdog for transport users, and the Rail Ombudsman, which will become part of a new Passenger Standards Authority.

Ministers have promised a “unified, simplified railway”. The plans include rewiring of the railways to “end decades of poor service, waste and timetable chaos”.

Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, has suggested that renationalising train companies will not necessarily bring cheaper rail fares for passengers but should reduce train cancellations and delays.

Services will return into state hands as remaining contracts expire over the coming years – or possibly earlier if lawyers advise of potential grounds for breach of contract.

South Western Railway is to become the first train operator to be nationalised under Labour. One of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)’s biggest commuter services, which operates out of London Waterloo, it will be taken into public hands when its contract ends in May. SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) is run as a joint venture between FirstGroup and MTR, the Hong Kong rail operator.

Two more commuter operations run out of the capital are next, with C2C, the Essex service, set to pass into public hands by July, and Greater Anglia to follow in the autumn.

All operators will eventually be nationalised – probably by late 2027 – under the provisions of the public ownership bill, which became law in December. A railways bill is set to be passed this year.

[Electric train]

From The Guardian

Reports suggest cuts in Great Britain would include removing ‘duplication’ of teams, as well job losses at HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))

Thousands of jobs could go as part of the government’s planned shake-up of Britain’s railway industry, according to a report.

Under Labour’s plans, a state-owned company, Great British Railways, will run the railway and take every train operator into public ownership as existing contracts expire.

Removing “duplication” of teams, as well as job cuts at the HS2 rail line linking London and Birmingham, will result in several thousand job losses, the Sunday Times reported, quoting an unnamed source.

The Department for Transport and the Treasury hope that bringing track and train together under the same organisation will bring cost savings.

A DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) spokesperson said: “We are delivering the biggest overhaul to our railways in a generation, creating a publicly owned, passenger-focused Great British Railways that will create exciting job opportunities, both for existing staff and those looking to get into the industry.

“Our number one priority is to provide passengers with the reliable, accessible, and more affordable services they deserve, and our plans will save taxpayers up to an estimated £150m every year in fees alone.”

Earlier this month, Keir Starmer announced the abolition of NHS England, “the biggest quango in the world”, with the loss of 10,000 roles, to cut bureaucracy. The government is expected to take a similar approach to rail.

Most of the job cuts are likely to be in back-office roles. Among organisations that could be abolished are Transport Focus, a watchdog for transport users, and the Rail Ombudsman, which will become part of a new Passenger Standards Authority.

Ministers have promised a “unified, simplified railway”. The plans include rewiring of the railways to “end decades of poor service, waste and timetable chaos”.

Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, has suggested that renationalising train companies will not necessarily bring cheaper rail fares for passengers but should reduce train cancellations and delays.

Services will return into state hands as remaining contracts expire over the coming years – or possibly earlier if lawyers advise of potential grounds for breach of contract.

South Western Railway is to become the first train operator to be nationalised under Labour. One of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)’s biggest commuter services, which operates out of London Waterloo, it will be taken into public hands when its contract ends in May. SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) is run as a joint venture between FirstGroup and MTR, the Hong Kong rail operator.

Two more commuter operations run out of the capital are next, with C2C, the Essex service, set to pass into public hands by July, and Greater Anglia to follow in the autumn.

All operators will eventually be nationalised – probably by late 2027 – under the provisions of the public ownership bill, which became law in December. A railways bill is set to be passed this year.

I do not think the job cuts will be a "cliff edge" cut ie on date x 3000 jobs go in GBR^▸ (Great British Railways), most of it will be gradual with the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) with the agreement of the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) and DfT combining rolls and duties in areas like Route Control, Regional HQ^▸ (Headquarters) etc. I suspect in the background GBR NR and TOCs are working out how to change how Major Stations are operated

[TaplowGreen]

They should be able to save an enormous amount by centralising generic backroom roles such as HR^▸ (Human Resources), Procurement, Finance (including any that are outsourced) etc very quickly as the article suggests, and emptying out the boardrooms of highly paid senior managers from defunct TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) will also create savings.

Not so sure about front line staff though, although I expect the downward pressure on ticket offices will continue.

Other than the usual high blown, vague rhetoric however I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all this is going to create a better service for the customer, although if it cuts down on the amount the taxpayer is having to hand over to the railways every year (which I am sure is one of the main drivers), I guess that's one benefit.

[Electric train]

Other than the usual high blown, vague rhetoric however I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all this is going to create a better service for the customer, although if it cuts down on the amount the taxpayer is having to hand over to the railways every year (which I am sure is one of the main drivers), I guess that's one benefit.

The Government rational at the time of privatisation was the vertically integrated management structure of British Rail was inefficient, unable to adapt to change and what the railways needed was for the homogenous BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) to be broken up into over 100 separate companies, they would all be competing with each other which would drive down costs and drive up efficacy they by lower fares. 

What in reality happened most of us in the industry got increase in pay because the 100 companies were competing for the limited skilled and experienced resource, over bloated executive and senior management came about to manage the competitive market of schedule 8 payments which in reality are wooden dollars but they need to £120k plus salaried executives plus their teams to manage it.

A more vertically integrated structure on the railways should lead to a more efficient and lower cost railway, as an example currently if I want to talk to a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) Engineer regarding a traction power issue it has to to via layers of commercial manages me and my fellow Engineer cannot agree anything until it has been checked commercially and signed of by a Director of some sort ................... this just did not happen in BR days.


The railways competition is air and road and not rail verse rail.  Is private sector involvement in the railways a good thing yes in the right places.


     

[TaplowGreen]

Other than the usual high blown, vague rhetoric however I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all this is going to create a better service for the customer, although if it cuts down on the amount the taxpayer is having to hand over to the railways every year (which I am sure is one of the main drivers), I guess that's one benefit.

The Government rational at the time of privatisation was the vertically integrated management structure of British Rail was inefficient, unable to adapt to change and what the railways needed was for the homogenous BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) to be broken up into over 100 separate companies, they would all be competing with each other which would drive down costs and drive up efficacy they by lower fares. 

What in reality happened most of us in the industry got increase in pay because the 100 companies were competing for the limited skilled and experienced resource, over bloated executive and senior management came about to manage the competitive market of schedule 8 payments which in reality are wooden dollars but they need to £120k plus salaried executives plus their teams to manage it.

A more vertically integrated structure on the railways should lead to a more efficient and lower cost railway, as an example currently if I want to talk to a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) Engineer regarding a traction power issue it has to to via layers of commercial manages me and my fellow Engineer cannot agree anything until it has been checked commercially and signed of by a Director of some sort ................... this just did not happen in BR days.


The railways competition is air and road and not rail verse rail.  Is private sector involvement in the railways a good thing yes in the right places.


     

Thanks - I will keep waiting! 

[grahame]

I may be going off topic here, but I have been unimpressed by the reported (to me, in conversation) inefficiencies of the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) making a number of suggestions to the Department for Transport with regards what they clearly regard as sensible changes which do not progress.  Clearly the TOCs in question think they make good sense - otherwise they would not spend time and company money/resources suggesting them, but as reported the suggestions are [refused / delayed / not answered / met with a "thank you" and no more].   

Of course there need to be multiple levels of review / discussion / consultancy but have we gone too far and having top executives, who we can assume are well paid, at TOCs come up with good ideas from there teams, does it show a degree of mistrust in them or a desire for excessive control from HMG if they are not allowed to do what they are paid to do in terms of coming up with and implementing sensible ideas?   

Streamlining this process could save jobs - but we so much need to take care that the jobs that are saved / removed are not the ones that have built up a great deal of expertise over the year.  There are some very good people in government circles (civil servants and politicians) but very often they are generalists who come from different backgrounds.

[TaplowGreen]

I may be going off topic here, but I have been unimpressed by the reported (to me, in conversation) inefficiencies of the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) making a number of suggestions to the Department for Transport with regards what they clearly regard as sensible changes which do not progress.  Clearly the TOCs in question think they make good sense - otherwise they would not spend time and company money/resources suggesting them, but as reported the suggestions are [refused / delayed / not answered / met with a "thank you" and no more].   

Of course there need to be multiple levels of review / discussion / consultancy but have we gone too far and having top executives, who we can assume are well paid, at TOCs come up with good ideas from there teams, does it show a degree of mistrust in them or a desire for excessive control from HMG if they are not allowed to do what they are paid to do in terms of coming up with and implementing sensible ideas?   

Streamlining this process could save jobs - but we so much need to take care that the jobs that are saved / removed are not the ones that have built up a great deal of expertise over the year.  There are some very good people in government circles (civil servants and politicians) but very often they are generalists who come from different backgrounds.

Can you give some examples of the suggestions that were made by the TOCs and subsequently refused, delayed etc by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) Graham?

[grahame]

Can you give some examples of the suggestions that were made by the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) and subsequently refused, delayed etc by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) Graham?

I need to be a journalist here and protect my sources - sorry.   I can tell you that I write in good faith.  Come to think of it, once such instance (and a really tiny one, and less proven that others) that did come to light here was the delay (was it allowed it the end?) in letting SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) units marooned in Exeter by a landslip on The Mule refuel at the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Exeter depot.

[Electric train]

I may be going off topic here, but I have been unimpressed by the reported (to me, in conversation) inefficiencies of the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) making a number of suggestions to the Department for Transport with regards what they clearly regard as sensible changes which do not progress.  Clearly the TOCs in question think they make good sense - otherwise they would not spend time and company money/resources suggesting them, but as reported the suggestions are [refused / delayed / not answered / met with a "thank you" and no more].   

Of course there need to be multiple levels of review / discussion / consultancy but have we gone too far and having top executives, who we can assume are well paid, at TOCs come up with good ideas from there teams, does it show a degree of mistrust in them or a desire for excessive control from HMG if they are not allowed to do what they are paid to do in terms of coming up with and implementing sensible ideas?   

Streamlining this process could save jobs - but we so much need to take care that the jobs that are saved / removed are not the ones that have built up a great deal of expertise over the year.  There are some very good people in government circles (civil servants and politicians) but very often they are generalists who come from different backgrounds.

Grahame, sadly this is all to common in the industry.  The Rail Industry is hampered by the controlling hands of Government, this was all to evident during the industrial unrest in 2022 / 23 and into 2024. also the contractual structure of rail privatisation does make flexibility and agility between TOCs and between TOCs and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) near impossible as it was designed to be competitive and not collaborative.

[LiskeardRich]

I understand NR^» (Network Rail - home page) personnel are in the process of moving in with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) at Swindon as part of the future looks.
So I believe we will see not just personnel cut but property cuts too with the better office facilities kept.

[TaplowGreen]

I understand NR^» (Network Rail - home page) personnel are in the process of moving in with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) at Swindon as part of the future looks.
So I believe we will see not just personnel cut but property cuts too with the better office facilities kept.

Exactly the sort of saving/rationalisation that should be easily achievable - one has to ask why it hasn't happened sooner.

[ChrisB]

I would expect over time this to progress even further - GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) opening regional bases with staff from , GBR, rail, operators & stations (if split from operators & why not?) all under one regional roof

[Electric train]

I understand NR^» (Network Rail - home page) personnel are in the process of moving in with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) at Swindon as part of the future looks.
So I believe we will see not just personnel cut but property cuts too with the better office facilities kept.

Exactly the sort of saving/rationalisation that should be easily achievable - one has to ask why it hasn't happened sooner.

GWR are not the only TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) / NR combining, there has been operational colocation of many TOCs and NR for quite a while.  Until the TOC has been "Nationalised" and GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) is a legal entity likely to be April 2027 after this will be the real shake up