Great Western Coffee Shop

NETWORK RAIL will become a public sector body during the coming year, following a reclassification of the company's status by the Office for National Statistics. The present company was set up in late 2001 to take over from Railtrack, but although NR had no shareholders it was said to be in the private sector.

The change in its status will place its current debt of some ^30 billion into the public accounts for the first time. Network Rail said the change was a largely technical matter and would not affect its governance, structure or investment plans.

I wonder therefore if Freedom of Information would now apply to it. 

As I understand it this is designed to stop the nonsense perpetrated by Governments of all persuasions over the last decades of setting up "autonomous" bodies like Network Rail/Railtrack and PPI schemes for hospitals so as ostensibly to get the debts of these bodies off the Government balance sheet. Complete nonsense all round.

I didn't think there was any doubt about Railtrack's status - or it wouldn't have gone bust!

Or was the legal position with Railtrack not sufficiently examined?

As I understand it this is designed to stop the nonsense perpetrated by Governments of all persuasions over the last decades of setting up "autonomous" bodies like Network Rail/Railtrack and PPI schemes for hospitals so as ostensibly to get the debts of these bodies off the Government balance sheet. Complete nonsense all round.

Do the IEP and Thameslink (PFI deals?) fall foul of this too?

Do the IEP and Thameslink (PFI deals?) fall foul of this too?

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73907000/jpg/_73907276_saltcoatstrain_pa.jpg)
Punctuality rates were hit by extreme weather, Network Rail said

Network Rail has said it expects to be fined about ^70m - a record figure - for delays suffered by passengers.

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) is expected to impose the penalty later this year.

Network Rail, which maintains Britain's tracks and rail infrastructure, said it was disappointed passengers had not seen the punctuality it had promised.

It said work was continuing to make the network more reliable - but congestion and extreme weather had caused delays.

For Network Rail to meet the ORR's punctuality target, 92.5% of trains must arrive "on time" - which is defined as within five minutes of the planned time for local services and 10 minutes for long-distance trains.
 
Passenger Focus
 
The company was told last year that it could face a fine of up to ^75m if it failed to hit this target. A Network Rail spokeswoman said a fine of about ^70m was now expected.

The BBC understands the fine could be lower if the ORR accepts that uncontrollable factors such as weather played a significant part in delays.

The previous biggest fine was ^14m, imposed in February 2008 after engineering work overran during the preceding Christmas and New Year period.

'More seats'
 
The fine would relate to Network Rail's performance over a five-year period which ends on Monday.

The company spokeswoman told the BBC the full punctuality statistics for the period were not yet available, but the final figure was likely to be "just short of 90%".

She said missing the target was "disappointing" but the company planned to "restore record levels of performance" with ^38bn of investment in the next five-year period.

The company would "provide more trains, more seats and quicker, greener journeys," she added.

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73907000/jpg/_73907198_73907193.jpg)
Engineers are still working to repair the storm-damaged railway line at Dawlish in Devon

An ORR spokeswoman said its assessment of Network Rail's performance for 2009-14 would not be complete until June.

ORR chief executive Richard Price said Network Rail had developed a "comprehensive" improvement plan to "achieve a better railway for Britain".

'Failed to deliver'
 
"Now it is time for the company, in collaboration with the industry, to make it happen," he said.

"ORR will be scrutinising progress closely to ensure plans for extra capacity, expanding and electrifying the railway, improving train punctuality, enhancing the resilience of our rail network to severe weather, closing level crossings and increasing workforce safety are effectively delivered."

David Sidebottom, acting chief executive of Passenger Focus, said passengers would be disappointed that Network Rail had "failed to deliver on its top priority - performance".

"It is essential that it gets a grip of the situation and delivers sustainable improvements," he said.

Network Rail is funded by a mixture of government grants and money from train companies which use the network.

What makes me laugh is this extract from the article:

"Network Rail, which maintains Britain's tracks and rail infrastructure, said it was disappointed passengers had not seen the punctuality it had promised.

It said work was continuing to make the network more reliable - but congestion and extreme weather had caused delays"

Now, as Network Rail sells train paths to freight and passenger operators what they're saying is we've effectively oversold paths and as a result we (Network Rail) have created the congestion which is causing the delays. 

At the end of the day, what is actually gained by imposing the fine on Network Rail?

The whole bigger question is "how do you motivate 'Network Rail' to do a good job?"    It's not a for-profit company with shareholders / owners, for example. 

But it is Network Rails job to manage the network, wether that is limiting the number of freight or passenger paths or just better scheduling. 
We've a number of services out of Paddington that are booked to follow freight trains, by the time they reach Reading they are close to 10 minutes late.

There's also a large number of services delayed by Freightliner services outside Reading, again, the same services are delayed by the same Freightliners every night.  That's unfortunately down to Network Rails poor management.

At the end of the day, what is actually gained by imposing the fine on Network Rail?

Isn't this the reason, or at least one of them, for the reconstruction of Reading station? Planning for this work started in Control Period 3, Control Period 5 has just started. The problems have been known about for years but with the increased numbers of trains the number of conflicts increase. The problem is that large infrastructure changes take time to implement.

Corrected typo.

 
We've a number of services out of Paddington that are booked to follow freight trains, by the time they reach Reading they are close to 10 minutes late.

It'll improve flow through Reading for some services but freight will still cause delays coming across Southcote Junction, which I believe should have dived under the Westbury lines and will still cause problems between Reading West Jnc and Oxford for relief line services.

Anyone who uses the Readng to Basingstoke will now the route isn't the best for punctuality and that boils down to the fact freight is given priority.  Freightliners are given that priority because of the stiffer financial penalties Network Rail receive if they run late.
You've only got to look at huge disruption events like a fatality. When the line reopens th first thing they do is send all the freight through, an hour or so later it'll reopen it to passenger traffic.
The priorities now are all wrong, the railway is no longer a public service.  If the financial penalties to Network Rail were the same for both freight and passenger traffic things would be very different.



Edit note: Quote mark fixed, for clarity. CfN.

UK train track owner Network Rail to be nationalised

Britain^s record-breaking ^38bn investment in the railways is to come under tighter government scrutiny when the body responsible for implementing the changes is in effect nationalised next month.

Following a European Union edict, Network Rail, the state-backed organisation that owns and operates Britain^s railway infrastructure, is to be reclassified as a public body on September 1, with its ^34.2bn gross debt shifted from the private sector on to the government^s balance sheet. As part of the move it will no longer borrow on the public markets but will receive loans from the government.

Network Rail, headed by Mark Carne, a former senior executive at Royal Dutch Shell, said it was a ^statistical change^ that would have little effect on passengers. But it added that it would ^mean greater accountability and transparency to parliament, the tax and fare payer, who rightly deserve to better understand the value of their significant investment in Britain^s booming railway^.

The changes have been welcomed for bringing an end to 13 years in which the body^s ambiguous status has raised major questions about its accountability to taxpayers, who will provide about 60 per cent of its ^38bn income over the next five years.

Network Rail, which controls railway tracks, signals, overhead wires, tunnels, bridges, level crossings and 2,500 stations, has been a private company since it was set up in 2002 ^ as ministers have always liked to point out at moments of acute controversy.

That private company has no shareholders and is held to account by 43 members who attend annual meetings and approve the appointment of directors, largely drawn from the private sector. At the same time its finances are guaranteed unconditionally by the UK government.

With the company now reclassified as a public body, the government is keen to introduce a more stringent governance framework. It is concerned that politicians will be forced to carry the blame for any future problems with punctuality, rail services, or finances.

The Office for Rail Regulation, which is funded by a levy on train operators, is already engaged in talks with the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee as to how it can provide more detailed information.

^Network Rail will have a different relationship with government,^ an ORR spokesperson said. ^Essentially they will become a part of the public sector and there are various rules they will need to comply with. They will have to report on their financial performance to parliament in a way they haven^t had to before.^

Network Rail^s executive pay and bonuses, long a bone of contention with unions, are also likely to be restructured so that incentives are more closely matched to performance, the ORR said. It emerged earlier this year that the company had paid out bonuses of ^1m at the same time as being fined ^53m for failing to meet train punctuality targets.

The reforms ^ spurred by the Treasury ^ have created Whitehall friction as officials at the Department for Transport try to work out the new governance arrangements. ^The DFT is much less keen on this than the Treasury,^ said one Whitehall official.

The DFT confirmed it was still working to ^determine the best approach to the company^s corporate governance and financial management^ but a framework agreement is expected to be published next month.

Experts warn there could be a danger of the body becoming a political football, despite claims it will maintain operational independence.

Stephen Joseph, head of the Campaign for Better Transport, said: ^Ministers will have a more direct relationship with Network Rail. What will happen is that MPs will go to ministers, saying ^if you want my vote on this or that I need better rail services in my constituency.^

Another senior rail figure added: ^Ministers will be more responsible. In the old days they took credit for the positive but when things were negative they hid behind the fact that it was a private company. It will be much harder for politicians to castigate it.^

Of Network Rail^s ^34.2bn debt, ^33.2bn is in listed bonds, meaning it has been paying an increasing amount of its income on servicing its debts. In the financial year 2013/14, it incurred ^1.4bn in financing costs, representing 22 per cent of total revenues of ^6.3bn.

Network Rail^s revenue comprises the grant ^ 62 per cent; track access charges from train operators ^ 34 per cent; and property and station retail income ^ 4 per cent.

The ^38bn over five years consists of a ^6bn-a-year grant from government, which includes ^2.5bn of track access charges paid by train operators. The remaining ^8bn comes from a mixture of property, retail income and loans.

In December 2013, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced that, due to a change in European reporting rules, Network Rail Limited with all of its subsidiaries would be reclassified as a central government body. That decision takes effect today (1 September 2014), and Network Rail is now a public sector arm^s-length body of the Department for Transport.

The government has approached its response to the ONS decision in partnership with Network Rail, with an emphasis firmly on the preservation of Network Rail^s ability to continue to manage its business with appropriate commercial freedom, within effective regulatory and control frameworks appropriate for a company in the public sector.

Today, I am publishing a framework agreement between the Department for Transport and Network Rail which sets out how both bodies will interact in terms of corporate governance and financial management. By working closely with Network Rail, my department has delivered a framework that provides appropriate accountability to Parliament and the taxpayer while preserving Network Rail^s operational independence. This both keeps clear Network Rail^s accountability for its performance and maintains the regulatory process managed by ORR to give industry the confidence to plan for the long term.

Given that Network Rail is now part of the public sector and government^s accounts, I will fulfil an enhanced role in overseeing the company. The framework agreement sets out how I and my officials will take on new responsibilities:

I will appoint future Chairs of Network Rail and approve or be consulted on other key governance changes
I will approve Network Rail^s remuneration policy and pay for executive directors
These changes have been reflected in ^Network Rail^s articles of association^ and agreed by Network Rail Members on 29 August 2014.

My department will also ensure that Network Rail complies with Parliamentary reporting requirements, Managing public money and other relevant public sector-wide rules.

I am also publishing a memorandum of understanding between the Department for Transport and the Scottish ministers, setting out how they will be involved in future decisions on Network Rail^s governance and financial management, and a loan facility agreement entered into between me and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited.

Congratulations, dear reader! As of this morning, you have racked up an extra ^539 in debt. No, you haven^t just bought a new wardrobe. You haven^t made a deposit on a winter break. And it^s not because of that heavy eBay session where you overbid for a signed Bulgarian copy of Wet Wet Wet^s first LP.

Nor are you alone. I^m another 539 quid in the red too ^ as are each of the other 63 million Britons. Put all those sums together and the entire country has just lost ^34bn. How did we manage that? The short answer is that some statisticians made it so. The Office for National Statistics has decided that, under new accounting rules, Network Rail can no longer be called a private company. It was always borrowing on the state^s behalf, and if anything went wrong with Network Rail, it was always going to be taxpayers who would be on the hook. So as of this week it goes on the public balance sheet, its ^34bn of debt now indelibly inked next to our names.

etc

As a central government body it will now, I presume, be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

A number of news reports recently have said it will remain exempt.

Paul

1.15 The Government and Network Rail have agreed that Network Rail will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to its public functions. This requires secondary legislation, which the Government will be bringing forward at the next opportunity.

The 'framework-agreement.pdf' between the DfT and Network Rail begs to differ.