Great Western Coffee Shop

According to the Plymouth herald Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary, is said to be considering splitting Great Western when the franchise comes up for renewal in 2020.
Under the new structure, a separate franchise would be created to operate trains from Devon and Cornwall on the Great Western line into London.
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new-rail-franchise-could-start-running-plymouth-trains/story-30079229-detail/story.html

What of the 20 or so per week day 'cross border' local and semi-fast GWR services between Cornwall/Devon and Somerset/Bristol?

Will this Devon and Cornwall franchisee be permitted to operate to London via (and calling at) Bristol, Bath, Chippenham, Swindon as well as via Castle Cary?

Perhaps they can also route some services from Cornwall and Devon to London via Melksham! :P

Hmm.  I'd be rather more interested / concerned if their sources from such 'reports' were actually quoted by the Plymouth Herald.  ::)

The Times also reports at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/grayling-plot-to-split-great-western-lines-qzrt8g8pq                                                                             "Grayling plot to split Great Western lines"....Transport secretary Chris Grayling is toying with breaking up one of Britain’s biggest rail franchises as he tries to introduce more competition in the industry.
His officials are exploring the possibility of splitting Great Western, which links London, south Wales, Devon and Cornwall, when the deal to run it ends in three years.

You could, of course, split the trains based on the fleets that run them as that makes for logical operational groups.

Severn and Solent Rail - based on Bristol and operating 165 and 166 units
Peninsular Rail - based in Exeter and running 150 and 158
Great Western Railway - based at Bristol Parkway and running 800 and 801
Thames Valley Trains - based at Reading and running electric trains with some diesel powered branches
West Express - based at North Pole and running class 802

Sounds a bit like a pendulum swinging to somewhere we've been before and a bit beyond. 

I think the franchise should be kept together; what's the point of the owning-group-neutral GWR livery (presumably intended to limit repaints to when the paint is life-expired rather than both then and when the owning group changes) is you're now going to split it up? Some toying round the edges maybe, such as East-West/Chiltern for routes north/east of Oxford (and, if you want some competition, perhaps extending the SWT Waterloo-Exeter services further into Devon).

Where does Cardiff-Portsmouth fit in all that? Bristol local services to Weston-Super-Mare, Portishead and Severn Beach might be ok with Turbos, but the regional express route needs something better than outer-suburban stock. Transfer to SWT and run with Salisbury's trusty 158s/159s (which would have to be suplemented with a new build of similar units, ideally a 3rd rail + diesel bi-mode)?

Competition requires two companies running the same or comparable routes.  Thames trains and FGW were in competition on the Reading-London route in the past.  Virgin and Chiltern compete on trains to Birmingham. But if you split the franchise up by region how is that an encouragement of competition?  It isn't like a company running Tilehurt to Pangborne is competing with one running Liskard to Looe. 

Some of the current franchise tenders, such as London Midland and SWT are being let on the basis that certain areas, such as the West Midlands and London inner suburban are to be run as separate business units so that responsibility could be taken over by TfWM / TfL, and presumably it mandates separate accounting so that costs can be clearly understood.

Arguably it might be a good idea for there to be an element of that within the new GWR franchise (Devon & Cornwall, MetroWest), but I'm not sure that it would be sensible to actually devolve them until there was a single well established and funded local body to oversee them.

My thoughts too. As long as you have regional franchising, you cannot have a meaningful level of competition.

Absolutely, the bottom line I suspect especially given the big fall in passenger numbers now (seen on internal staff documents) since 2015/16 on GWR in the south west peninsula is that the government really wants the costs of running what is an increasingly monolithic and inefficient GWR to be much more transparent.

My tongue in cheek suggestion took exactly the three franchises that were combined into the Greater Western and split them back up ... Thames Valley more or less "as was" and each of the other two divided.   So all former "Wessex trains" operations from Cardiff / now from Bristol would be part of "Severn and Solent Rail" which would stretch to Portmouth with occasional whisps to Brighton, to Weymouth, to Taunton, to Worcester and Great Malvern, and to Cardiff.

But the Devon/Cornwall franchise will never show a profit - why would the DfT want another franchise on its books that needs taxpayer support - when while combined with GWR it can show a profit?

Precisely, why indeed would Chris Grayling be even thinking such a thing unless he is looking at reducing rail operations to more sustainable levels subsidy wise in Devon and Cornwall longer term by using local rather than national economic drivers.

Could this have arisen out of concern that there is only a limited number of companies willing to take on the risk of a large franchise.  This could mean a poor deal for the tax payer.  Smaller franchises might be small enough to encourage new entrants to the business keen to undercut First, DB and SNCF with their bids.   

Perhaps not a bad idea.  I just get this feeling that we are going round in circles.  ten years from now they will be merging small franchises as a way of improving reliability. 

I've got the latest passenger figures and there hasn't been a big fall in passenger numbers in Devon & Cornwall since 2015/16.  In 2015/16 itself, there was what looked like a big fall on the Cornish main line, the Newquay line and to an extent also the St Ives line.  As you can imagine, we were very concerned about this and GWR investigated what had happened.  It turned out to be the result of an unusual Orcats split which washed out of the system in Period 2 this year (May) and the apparent falls of 15/16 have been reversed.    

In terms of the branch lines, Exmouth, Gunnislake, Looe and Newquay have all had their best years yet (our records go back to 2001) with slight fall backs on Falmouth and Barnstaple and a bit bigger on St Ives, that mainly as a result of the St Erth fire in August.

Get out into the real world and stand on a platform at Exeter At David's, Newton Abbot andhttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/grayling-plot-to-split-great-western-lines-qzrt8g8pq Plymouth and you will see what I mean about falling passenger numbers in Devon and Cornwall now and why the government has to do something about the situation and quickly.

I live in Plymouth and do a lot of travelling around the two counties (and have for many years) so I'm well up to speed with what is going on in "the real world" as you put it.  What I would say is that the London - far South West trains seem quieter than a year or so ago (one of the reasons behind the current January Sale, for example).  I don't see those figures.  The figures for local services and travel locally within the two counties are healthy, as I have said. 

The mooted franchise idea is nothing to do with increasing passenger numbers in even the medium term.  I think Tim has one of the reasons - to create smaller franchises that will attract more bidders and particularly new entrants.   I went around campaigning for Wessex Trains to be given a chance to run the full intended franchise back in 2003 or so (this would have included the Waterloo - Exeter route.)  I was worried that a larger Great Western franchise would focus on the long distance services, then the London suburban ones and local and branch services would be largely forgotten.  I'm pleased to say that my fears were unfounded and the Devon & Cornwall branch lines and other local services have generally done very well under FGW/GWR, particularly given the hand dealt them by the 2006 franchise Service Level Commitment.  We have big improvements coming across the two counties in and by December 2018 so I'd need a lot of persuading that splitting our services out of the bigger franchise would lead to a better result for passengers.

Richard Burningham
Devon & Cornwall Rail Partnership

but that's just an accountancy issue.  It makes no overall difference to the public purse if they have one big franchise breaking even or two small franchises one making a loss which is cancelled out by the other making a profit.

[edit below]

Having thought further. It is an perhaps not JUST an accountancy issue.  It is a political issue too and at the whim of politicians.  We have precedence for a loss making franchise being merged with a profitable franchise in the past (ie when the current FGW was set up) but also examples of the opposite happening (ie TPE being split off to allow it to be a profitable stand-alone operation).  So it is not clear to me which may the politicians favour moving in

Hmmm.

If there were profit-making franchises, breaking-even franchises and just one franchise needing taxpayers subsidy (large, but overall no subsidy needed), which would be getting most coverage

see my edit above for later thoughts.

To answer your question with another question.  The politically ideal structure might depend on whether the government wants to shine a light on the loss making routes or not.  If not then bury the loss in a bigger franchise.  But if the Government is minded to deal with the loss (either by investment or cuts - I genuinely think that it could be either of those things) then step one might be to highlight the losses so that they can be seen as a problem to which the Government can offer a solution.

Well there are "statistics,damn statistics and lies". I have been a near 24/7 rail user and close observer of the rail scene particularly between Plymouth and Exeter for many years and have come to know a lot of people on Devon's railways as a result. So I repeat get out from behind your computer screen and cosy meetings and simply stand on Exeter St David's station for a few days and observe the real world and you will see what I mean. HST's that were very busy just a few years are now loading much lighter. It no wonder XC are withdrawing from Torbay with them running virtually empty between Paignton and Newton Abbot for most of the day and year as do GWR's Paddington/Torbay services. If you don't believe me simply stand on Newton Abbot station for a day and see for yourself. But its not just Torbay. I was on the 1306 Paddington to Plymouth (1520 ex Exeter St David's) last week and it had less than 10 people on it by the time it arrived in Plymouth.  You may well be see "doctored" GWR statistics on a computer scheme but I see the real railway world through real eyes in real time almost every day  since I retired a few years ago. So I stand by what I say. The many GWR staff I have come to know have also made the same comments to me about how very unusually quiet the railways are now in Devon and Cornwall even for the time of year. You may be well meaning but you are simply part of a  system that has left the far south west high and dry railway investment wise compared to elsewhere in the country in recent decades  as vast sums of taxpayers money that should of gone into the railways have instead been used to prop up John Majors  dysfunctional, fragmented and deeply inefficient rail privatisation for political ends. End off.

That is an awful lot of time to spend on the rail system...

Hmmm ... we live in a changing world.   Passenger numbers have escalated in recent years, but that's not uniform across stations, times of day, journeys made or trains used.  And as the pattern changes, so the required train pattern changes, and when a train pattern changes it can have knock on effects on other train pattern changes too.

Mention made of quieter occasional HSTs and Voyagers to Paignton.  Where in the past London journeys (say) were main on the "Devon Express" because there was no practical choice, today there's much more traffic on the route - but also a choice between clock face trains all through the day with a connection.   Have those clock face trains, where the train can fit to people's days rather than having to fit the day around the only train, abstracted traffic from the "occasionals" to the extent that Woody sees a train that was once busy now just a shadow of itself?

I would think that these rumours of the GW franchise being split are based on a resurfacing of the aims of the Peninsular Rail Task Force (https://peninsularailtaskforce.co.uk) which wrote to Network Rail in 2013. A copy of the letter is to be found at http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse%20documents/market%20studies/freight%20market%20study%20consultation%20%20responses/t/the%20peninsula%20rail%20task%20force.pdf (http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse%20documents/market%20studies/freight%20market%20study%20consultation%20%20responses/t/the%20peninsula%20rail%20task%20force.pdf).


From the 'job description' of the Penisular Rail Task Force.



Further

(Slightly edited to fit!)

So, I suspect that all that is happening is that these discussions are continuing and somebody has added 2 and 2 and made 5.
 

Grayling has form in breaking up organisations in the hope that it will bring an improvement.  I'm thinking of the disastrous splitting of the Probation Service which even the government, barely two years on, has acknowledged has been a failure. 

Meddling for meddlings sake by the looks of things.?.

By breaking up the franchise into something smaller would surely increase the operating cost, afterall, each franchise will have its own Managing Director and senior management team for starters?

Woody, I wonder if an increased competition from natex and megabus are hitting the London to southwest figures?
There is greater frequency on the coaches overall albeit lesser capacity, however Plymouth to London return is easily achieved by coach for £20 return or less. I'd (and have) quite happily sit on a coach for 5 1/2 hours instead of the train for 4 hours for the saving.
To arrive in London from Plymouth before 0900 the train wants £267, megabus on 4 weeks today, depart Plymouth at 0100 arriving at Victoria at 0725  is £7 single. A return departure from Victoria at 1800 arriving Plymouth 2345 is £8,
£15 return or £267 return isn't a hard choice for most.

Grayling is an ideologue.  I don't mean that he is extreme or anything (or that I necessary disagree with him very much), but he is one of those politicians of the Thatcher mould who see markets as good wherever possible as a matter of  principle.   

Why 'ideologue'? Markets have been around since the Bronze Age, if not for longer, and they seem to work. If they didn't then they would have been dropped by the time of the Iron Age.

Certainly a very good price for the coach journey, though I can't see how you'd need to pay £267 on the train?  If you're willing to leave on a 1am coach then surely you'd be prepared to travel on the arguably more sociably timed sleeper an hour before at 23:54 (advance single £31.50), and it's currently £52 on the 05:30 arriving 09:21 though that's a little later than the arrival time you specified.  Returning based on your coach arrival of 23:45 and advances are available on the 19:45 arriving 23:25 or 20:35 arriving 00:11 for £31.50.  So I'd suggest the equivalent train journey would actually cost £63 return which makes it much more competitive with that great value coach fare.

Wheels have been around just as long and they seem to work. But they're not very good for chopping things or starting fires. Just because markets have been around since the Bronze Age doesn't mean they're automatically the best solution in every circumstance.

I have no objection to the idea of markets.  properly functioning markets provide most things better than any of the alternatives.  I use the terms "ideologue" and "Thatcherite" because I think he sees competitive markets as the solution to everything even things were the circumstances (such as the limited ability of trains to overtake each other or the desire to regulate prices) means that they might not be able to function very well as markets and therefore the advantages usually provided by market competition might not be fully achieved.  Some people would accept that something like the railway is difficult to run as a market and therefore decide to try a non-market (or semi-market) approach to running them.  A market ideologue would see the solution (and perhaps one of the few roles of Government) as trying to remove all barriers to competition.  I don't say that his approach is wrong, just that it needs great care to be done properly which I worry it may not get due to ideological certainty.   

At the risk of going really off-piste - I would claim that markets will always give a result. By 'market' I understand the process by which agreement is reached between parties wishing to buy or sell goods or services. The agreement may be that no exchange takes place.

Markets function within the frameworks of the societies in which they occur - socially, legally, financially and morally. The amazing thing about them is that they function without any central direction of bureaucracy. They are really cheap to run and can reach conclusions very quickly.

The result of any agreement reached may not be one that one, personally, wants or desires - but that is another issue.

The concept of on-rail competition was dropped before the 1993 Railways Act - I doubt, whatever the rhetoric, that it will be re-visted for all the reasons you give. However, one of the guiding forces behind the 1993 Act was to try to push decision making as far down the organisation as possible so it is made close to the customer it affects. I see this initiative as being part of that idea - very much like BR set up Cornish Railways as a nearly 'stand-alone' cost centre all those years ago. It is, by no extent of the imagination, a 'free' market and I doubt whether Grayling sees it as such.

I did a couple of Plymouth to Truro HST trips earlier this month and was surprised at just how quiet the services were, even the usually busy teatime up services from Truro. However, last Sunday I travelled from EXD to BRI on a XC voyager and it was significantly busier, even in First Class.

Whenever I have taken a Torbay HST/XC service it has been quiet, especially the 14.00 (15.00 dep. EXD) up, and I'm not surprised XC are pulling out, although it's a great shame.

There is a press article in one of the Saturday papers about smaller, longer franchises possibly a) enticing more bidders as the risks are smaller, and b) thus possibly gaining better investment offerings from bidders. Seems to be from a chat with Grayling or high-end DfT staff.

Good.   As I see it getting private companies in as franchisees (as opposed to suppliers or straight contractors) is only really justified if they bring private sector investment (as did Chiltern with their longer franchise).  The idea that they bring "private sector expertise" is a bit weak because it will be the same group of people with railway expertise running the railway however it is organised. 

Memory recall tells me it was about the issues raised as a response to the Transport Committees report released on Friday(?)

Everyone moans about how bad the GWR franchise is, but its not that bad at all, at the end of the day, by the end of this year and into 2018, a new timetable will be brought in, bringing better frequency, new or refurbished longer trains where needed, and the routes in Devon/Cornwall will match up with express services from London at connecting stations, that never happened with Wessex Trains, in my opinion the answer isn't splitting up a franchise which has made massive changes in 10 years, seen great growth and is now just about to catch up and have spare capacity for 3 or 4 years. (well as longs as fuel prices don't go up sky high)

I tend to agree.  But if GWR is split up it will not be because of failures of GWR (afterall FGW was in a much worse state a while ago and was allowed to continue).  It will be split up because of ideological ideas about competition or concerns that the Government is getting poor value from franchisees because too few companies bid for franchises.  And If it is split up most of the stock and many of the staff and managers will remain the same anyway. 

It might be reasonable to expect that with a longer franchise run, that a private company would be willing to invest its own money to get a return. Chiltern is often cited as an example of this but there are some specific different circumstances in particular that it is essentially self contained at least in National Rail terms, so any infrastructure investment can potentially benefit the operator fairly directly. The fan-like nature of the rail routes from Paddington make splitting much less obvious. Everything would be shared up to Reading if there were two companies operating the two prime routes thereafter. Even then there is the question that operationally and for customer needs some of the trains from the South West most sensibly go via Bristol especially at both ends of the day, even without consideration of XC.

You could separate off the non-main line services in effect reverting back to something more like the original structure, but that isn't clear how investment could be drawn in to the services that on their own are likely to never cover running costs.

I agree. I would add that there are a couple of other issues which would have to be solved before a private company invests in infrastructure. Firstly, the ownership of the new infrastructure at the end of the franchise would have to be determined before any investment is made. Imagine Bristol and Exeter Railway (2020) Ltd. built a new station at, say, Brent Knoll using its own money.

Seven years later B&E (2020) are replaced by the Exeter and Bristol Railway - what then happens to the ownership of the station? Does it revert to Network Rail, and how much does NR have to pay B&E (2020) Ltd. to take it over? Or was it built by Bristol and Exeter Railway Infrastructure (2020) Ltd., a sister operation to Bristol and Exeter Railway Trains (2020) Ltd, and the ownership of the station remains with Bristol and Exeter Railway Infrastructure (2020) Ltd although the 'Trains' sister has become defunct? So the Exeter & Bristol Railway now has to pay a rent to B&E I (2020) Ltd. for its continual use - or possibly ceases to stop trains there and avoids the payment. Or will B&E I (2020) Ltd. continue to receive a portion of ticket sales to and from the station?

Infrastructure investment can cover more than stations - what about extra tracks and signalling to control them. Who owns these things? Does the TOC hand extra money to NR for additional facilities and is rewarded by lower access charges?

So many questions...

None of which would require asking if we had a nationalised network.  ;)

This is true of all privatisations - every one of the industries has to have a regulator to control the activities of the companies.  In some cases, the regulator has too few teeth.

The whole concept of privatisation is a fraud on the public - think of BT/British Gas/Electricity.  We were being sold assets we'd already paid for through taxation.  That's why I didn't buy any shares.

Now we have a railway system in which many of the operating companies are part owned by the state rail companies from Germany, France and the Netherlands .  So we've exported the asset value.  How will Brexit impact on that I wonder?

How much of the European rail system does Network Rail own? Er...

Failing Grayling is hopeless.  He made a hash of his time at the MoJ and most of what he did had to be unravelled after expensive litigation which cost the taxpayer money.  So now he's got his chance to wreck the railways.

All anyone knows about that is that nobody knows anything for certain.  :-\

It won't - what would change? A contract is a contract.


None - but no European State-Owned company owns any British infrastructure either!!! So many pax get this wrong - all they have is the contract to run trains for a period of time. That's it, no ownership of any infrastructure, nor rolling stock, unless they physically purchase it themselves.

I would argue that if you had a properly functioning market with competition you would not need a complicated regulatory system to make the thing work.  The necessity of a complicated regulatory system therefore suggests that perhaps privatisation of that industry or certainly privatisation of the form pursued wasn't a good idea. 

And the asset value of a fixed term contract is precisely zero at the end of such a contract, so no asset value is exported. The profit margin maybe, but no assets.

I'd interpreted welshman's question as relating to the future: When these contracts come up for renewal, how will Brexit affect the negotiation and bidding? It might become politically unacceptable to award big contracts to foreign-owned companies. Currency instability might make them unattractive to EU-based firms, as might a post-Brexit crash. We might even impose rules on repatriation of profits. On the other hand, if we become "tax haven Britain" we might find those firms transferring their bases over here while their operations remain across the Channel. Etc etc.

With the UK needing trade deals, it is very unlikely that we'll put any kind of profit-retaining in the deals! We will want Big Deals ourselves, so awarding big deals to others will be a necessity....

This is one of the reasons why it is debateable how much of the passenger side of the is railway actually is really privatised these days, beyond ownership of the rolling stock. As things have developed with the operating companies they are running a schedule as originally dictated by the DfT. In theory they can do more, but this is a marginal activity now, not least constrained by the contracted schedule taking up pretty much all the infrastructure capacity in many key areas. As such franchises are much more like a public service contracted out (along the lines of those from councils to empty dustbins) rather than truly private.

It has suited successive governments to portray it differently, not least so they can say it is up to the operating companies when the service is less than a section of the public desires - as they used to do with BR.

But for a properly functioning market to work it must be economic for companies to increase capacity to meet all the expected demand.  Without that there never can be a properly functioning market.

For want of a better word - tosh! No 'asset value' has been exported at all. The infrastructure assets remain in UK Government ownership - Network Rail is a limited company which is effectively nationalised.

The rolling stock is owned by six or seven (I can't be bothered to count) ROSCOs. Some of these are whole or partially owned by overseas interests.[1]

The foreign state railway companies, or rather their subsidiaries, have bought into the right to operate trains - that's all - under terms and conditions set by the DfT.

[1] That foreign interests own a proportion of British assets is simply the consequence of this country having run a balance of payments deficit for many years. The exported sterling then needs to find a home - it's pretty useless if it is simply locked away in the vaults of China or the Gulf States.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of pax who honestly believe this tosh....I'm not sure how they could be correctly educated.

Not quite. The idea of the regulatory systems for the de-nationalised industries was to act as a form of artificial competition by limiting monopolistic behaviour.

With time the regulation was intended to fade away as market forces gained in strength. However once an organisation, any organisation, has been set up its first priority is to ensure its continued existence. So the Regulators became 'essential', especially with a change in the political make-up of the Government the Regulators were seen to be an ideal channel to implement Government policy.

The form and structure of the regulating bodies is now very different indeed to that existing when they were set up.

That is my beef.  It is neither capitalism nor socialism.  It is phoney-capitalism which IMHO often incorporates the worst aspects of both of the other systems bringing in both private sector greed and short termism and public sector incompetency and inefficiencies. 

I presume that you are being ironic with your stereotypes? I hope so - as neither is strictly true!

I could refute both descriptions - but that is really an argument for other places. Suffice it to say that anyone who believes either of these descriptions are always true is fated to be either a pundit or a politician.

I believe the description. Which one am I?

You seem very pro- the current franchise model, 4064ReadingAbbey, and pro privatisation generally. Are there interests in the status quo that inform your opinion - shareholdings for example? Or is it just a belief that 1980s/1990s Conservative ideology is the one true path?

Are you pundit or politician?  ;)

The problem with privatisation is that was invented because politicians were so bad at running anything.  So instead of resigning or getting some training they tried to get private sector people in to manage it, put in an 'independent' regulator to oversee it and then could not resist trying to meddle.   

No irony.  I am exaggerating and simplifying, but I think that my general point that the need for a complicated regulatory regime is an indicator that perhaps a market-based private sector driven solution which works well is going to be a challenge to implement which begs the question why would you bother unless for some ideological reason. 

The only other thing I will say about rail privatisation, is that the current system is not very privatised.  All the key assets are publically owned, and when we tried to privatise the infrastructure (Railtrack), it was an expensive fiasco and people died. 

Ideology works both ways. Railways, harbours, canals, external telecomms, coal, steel, airlines, road transport, etc. were nationalised as a result of ideology.

The regulatory regime has changed considerably since the first organisations were de-nationalised - the Office of the Rail Regulator became the Office of Rail Regulation and is now the Office of Rail and Road. It has also adapted, or been adapted, in order to be able to continue to exist. Its most important original function, that of acting as pseudo-competition to a privately owned monopoly supplier, ceased to exist as soon as Network Rail became a protege of Government in 2003. A QUANGO regulating another QUANGO always seemed a bit odd.

And regulation also exists for the private sector - it's called the Competition and Markets Authority. I sometime wonder why the Regulators for individual ex-nationalised industries are not rolled into the CMA. The system would then at least be simplified.

And I would be careful in suggesting that fatal accidents which occurred when the infrastructure owner was privatised was an inevitable result of the ownership. In spite of the lack of the profit motive driving down costs, the nationalised railways killed more people, both in total and on an average annual basis, than was the case during Railtrack's short existence or in the structure that now exists.

I am not suggesting by any means that the current structure is optimal - but in fact no structure is optimum. The political, legal, economic and moral environment in which any organisation functions is constantly changing and the organisations have to change as best they can to suit.

Can you provide some figures to support this? What deaths are you including?

Rail deaths (and indeed other deaths on transport per mile travelled) have all dropped over the years - see http://www.soue.org.uk/souenews/issue6/jenkinlect.html - but I wouldn't like to confirm any correlation to the ownership / stewardship of the infrastructure.   Over time we have worked very hard indeed to analyse things when there's a problem and further reduce risk, and it's the dividend from that which gives improving figures.

Well there is no doubt that the "public infrastructure with private ToCs" railway of today is much safer than under BR.  It is 10 years since the railway killed a passenger in a crash (Greyrig).  BR typically managed a handful of deaths in such circumstances almost every year and there was a time when Railtrack did little better.   Correlation is not causation, but it does seem that the "phoney capitalism" version of the railway we have today is safer than both the nationalised BR or the originally privatised system.  It is also safer than the railways in most other countries.  I would credit at least part of the excellent safety of today on Network Rail getting a firm grip on the maintenance problems that had arisen under Railtrack. 

Having worked for all three of the organisations mentioned I find that anaylsis somewhat flawed.  The saviour of todays railway has been the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) which has prevented quite a few potentially serious accidents.  Remember, after Clapham BR was planning full introduction of Automatic Train Protection (ATP) but this was 'cancelled' by the government on the basis of cost.  So the fact there were several accidents after Clapham is not down to any of the railway organisations.  Railtrack installed TPWS, not NR so the improved safety record is not down to NR.  The fact that Maintenance is now 'in house' has had little effect on safety and to suggest otherwise is being very unfair to those dedicated staff that delivered regardless of their employer.  There have been some serious 'close calls' since NR took over.  Cost cutting by RT and its contractors has been far overshadowed by those taking place by NR at present where maintenance budgets are being pruned to the bare bones and experienced staff are leaving/have left in droves.

So, as I was trying to imply, safety is not directly linked to the type of ownership - and one should be very careful in trying to make a link.

In the recent past TPWS has undeniably made an enormous difference - but BR was very slow in adopting its predecessor AWS (Automatic Warning System). This was inexcusable as the (real) GWR had introduced Automatic Train Control (ATC) in 1906. BR only installed the magnetic version after the Harrow accident in 1952. I am sure that BR could have installed the GWR version as soon as it was set up, but it didn't.

My conclusion is that it is not the ownership that matters in the final analysis, but the importance laid on any particular topic by management. And just after the war, during which casual death was an everyday occurrence, attitudes to safety were very different.

If I recall at least two of the major accidents around the turn of the century could arguably be down to privatisation.  The driver training of Thames Trains appeared to leave a lot to be desired in the aftermath of Ladbroke Grove.  And the gauge corner cracking that resulted in Hatfield and the subsequent melt-down of Railtrack was widely attributed to the de-emphasis of engineering and outsourcing of day to day maintenance following the formation of Railtrack.

It's true that TPWS has been a very significant factor in the improvement in safety since. And when things do go bump, the crashworthiness of current stock is hugely improved, with the accelerated withdrawal of Mark 1 stock in the SE a factor here.  I suspect both of those would have happened with or without privatisation, although the huge replacement of stock before it was life expired was probably made easier by privatisation. Instead of an up front capital cost to the Treasury, leasing costs spreads the cost over many years, although it is effectively mortgaging the future (in the same way that PFI hospitals do).  Sounds good at the time, but the cost comes back to bite you in the future. 

Although the Ladbroke Grove accident is often taken to be, at least, partially due to inadequate driver training I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of this conclusion. Lord Cullen's report of the Inquiry did not come to any definite conclusions as to why the driver of the Class 165 made the errors he did.

The one thing the inquiry should have done at the beginning, but didn’t, was to establish the exact sequence of events leading up to the collision. Because of difficulties in decoding the On Train Monitoring Recorder traces the actual behaviour of the outbound Class 165 was available only shortly before the inquiry closed - long after all the hypotheses, claims and counter-claims had been discussed in public. The actual sequence of events by then played only a minor role in the reporting of the accident.

These OTMR data were overlaid on a track diagram and the document ("lgri.pdf") was available on the HSE’s website although it was not included in Lord Cullen's report. The diagram shows quite clearly that the AWS warning was cancelled at the single yellow indication before signal SN87 on Gantry 6 (in rear of SN109) and speed was allowed to drift down to 38mph as the train entered points 8051, moving across from Line 4 to Line 3. During the crossing movement power was reapplied although the train was still some 60 to 70 metres before the sighting point for signal SN109 (188 metres from the signal) and about 140 metres before it reached the AWS magnet for that signal. On passing the magnet the AWS warning was cancelled, signal SN109 was passed at danger (all 5 other signals on Gantry 8 were also at red) but the driver left the power applied and the train to continue to accelerate.

In other words at three errors were made in quick succession:

• power was re-applied before signal SN109 was visible
• SN109’s AWS warning was cancelled when the signal was visible, but power was left on and the train accelerated past the signal
• no brake application was made when the train overshot turnout 8057 (about 150 metres after the train had passed SN109) that would have taken the train (if SN 109 had been 'clear') to line 1, the Down Main.

I think in the aeronautical world this is called 'lack of situational awareness'.

Research has shown that drivers in their first year of driving were most at risk from SPADs and that between 30 and 47% of SPADs were accounted for by drivers with less than five years experience. (See for example Downes, M. & Robinson, W. W. (1999), Drivers route experience and SPAD propensity, a Special Topic Report for Railtrack S&SD). This suggests to me that the accident was due more to not comprehending the situation because of lack of experience rather than directly due to inadequacies in the training - although Lord Cullen did find the training programme to be inadequate and Thames Trains were fined under the Health and Safety Act.

Taking into account all the factors, it is hard to say that the accident was caused by privatisation per se. The disruption it caused may have contributed but BR was also fated to be almost continually disrupted. G. F. Fiennes in his 1967 book 'I tried to run a railway' made the same point: that the attention of the few people who run the railway is distracted and punctuality and safety go to pot.

There is no reason why the term should not be applied to the railway world as well. It fits your analysis perfectly.

Another point is also demonstrated - there is seldom if ever one single cause of an accident. Most are a culmination of at least three different factors.

Was being talked about on BBC Spotlight today, with several MP's who wanted the franchise split up, now not wanting it too at all! Morons the lot of them. As for Grayling he's an idiot too, the GWR franchise is slowly getting better and better with more people using the branch lines, new train being introduced and a better connected timetable, why undo all this hard work? If it does happen, which it probably will, it sounds like either the Devon/Cornwall locals will be removed, or South Wales services transferred. Luke Pollard MP for Plymouth is right(and im a Conservative supporter) most of the money for the franchise comes from Reading to Paddington tickets, which is used across the franchise to support other parts of the network, if the split the franchise this will only make it have a loss, which it did under Wessex Trains!  Lets be said that if the idiotic plan goes ahead im not voting Cons again utter shambles!

Plus the reasonable approach of dealing with the biggest risks and those most easily dealt with first.  So ATP/TPWS only started to be considered when central door locking had successfully stopped people falling out of train doors which was a bigger risk until the 1990s.  Only when TPWS had made crashes caused by SPADs less likely did level crossing safety become the big priority it is now. 

why does it matter if a recreated Wessex franchise makes a loss?  surely the loss will be compensated for by the bigger profits of the mainline franchise.  If the subsidy/premium profile is correctly set up the overall cost to the taxpayer will be the same.   

The worry is that the "Wessex" franchise would then potentially be under pressure from government (or future governments) to reduce its subsidy.

But the current GWR franchise is under pressure from Government to increase the premium paid.  I don't buy the argument that by "hiding" unprofitable services in a bigger franchise the Government forgets or overlooks that they are loss making.  To DfT a change in premium from £10m to £20m is worth precisely the same as a cut in subsidy from £20m to £10m. 

There are good reasons to keep GWR together, but the fact that local journeys are cross subsidised by long distance ones is not one of them.  Remember subsidy is tax payer's money and transparency in how that is collected and spent is ALWAYS a good thing. 

By combining the franchises in 2006, was the SRA (and then DfT Rail) hiding a slashing of support for nearly all the Wessex trains routes under a reorganisation smoke screen, with the First group being their paid thugs contractors to do the dirty work of reducing as they re-organised?

But then should the franchises be split again in 2019 or 2020, would that further piece of re-re-organsation be a further opportunity to provide a further redirection (in a negative or a positive direction) under another smoke screen.

A time of change is a time of opportunity ... opportunities offered to all sides.  Not all the opportunities can be realised, and to some extent the opportunities available to the most powerful and most driven will prevail.  In 2006, we were in the middle of a long Labour government, with few Labour MPs in the South West.   In 2019 / 2020 though, it's probable we'll have ... well, it's a peculiar time, but we'll probably have a narrow conservative majority and the likes of Michelle Donelan, Andrew Murrison, John Glen, James Gray and Claire Perry will have an eye on ensuring that whatever happens it's palatable to their voters.

I always thought one of the advantages (if there were any) of having the former Wessex routes in the GWR franchise was the feeder aspect of the smaller routes. That would be a loss overall.

There are also some general points which can be made about franchise sizes. These are, in no particular order:

• There seems to be a general feeling that the form of organisation (and also ownership) is important. I maintain that this is not necessarily the case - but politicians like re-organisations because, essentially, that is all they can do without spending money. And it allows people to think the Government is doing something.
• The 'success' of a business - whether measured by performance, financial returns or whatever - depends more on having clear and consistent targets set by the business's Directors than on the form of the organisation or its ownership per se. The Directors then have to ensure the management is up to the job. The issue at the moment is that the DfT is a poor substitute for a good Board of Directors as it is too affected by other considerations and is one step removed from the franchise, the franchisee's holding company being in the way.
• Small franchises have a potential advantage from the DfT's point of view in that the costs of making the bid and the size of the performance and season ticket bonds which have to be posted will be smaller. For example National Express may be interested in returning to the UK market if the 'up-front' costs are reduced.
• As potential bidders don't have to have such deep pockets the way is opened for the DfT to reduce its reliance on the European railway administrations bidding for franchises which is the current de facto case. This is because they are the only ones with railway experience and with deep enough pockets to bid. This will to a certain extent reduce the commotion about our railways being sold to foreigners.
• Small franchises have a problem in giving their staff a promotion ladder. The danger is the brighter ones will move elsewhere.
• Unit costs for small franchises will tend to be higher as they will need their own financial department, HR department and so on rather than using the central services of a larger organisation.
• These additional costs may be nullified by the tighter and more direct management possible in a small organisation.

The other two major long distance franchises in the UK - west and east coast main lines - both have multiple regional 'feeder' franchises and seem to operate ok. Do you think that would work differently on the western route?

I would like to see a Cornwall Devon franchise which operated the region's branchlines, AND a proportion of peak/ off peak Intercity services.

This idea of a Devon & Cornwall mini franchise has been around for a few years now and generally has not been positively received. Although at one time Devon County Council (when it had more money and several PRO Rail movers & shakers) was stirred that it might have its own train set.
I suppose the now largley redundant St Blazey Depot could be the DMU and Baby HSTs hub for Cornwall.

Rumours on Twitter that the Devon and Cornwall TOC will include the Berks and Hants route to London
Philip Haigh yesterday on Twitter

 Over 20 year's ago I'm sure I was advised that 'privatisation' of the railways would make
 everything so much easier ! 

That has potential to introduce some competition (price and journey time) for those in Wiltshire who need to get to London and can chose between going North to Bath/Chippenham or South to Westbury.  

I guess the Hitachi/GWR contract for provision of IET sets would have to be renegotiated, and presumably split into two parts thereby potentially reducing overall availability. What an absolutely brilliant idea!  :)

Explain that assumption please? Why would it?

At present there is a complex contract between GWR and Hitachi.
If the present GWR franchise is to be split into two new franchises and if each of the new franchises are to operate IETs, then two new contracts will be needed, adding more complexity.

If the two fleets are to remain identical, then that has removed an important element of competition, no chance of promoting one route over the other "come travel with us, our trains are more comfortable" or more likely "come with us, we are cheaper (higher density seating)"

On the other hand if the new operators are allowed to alter the internal fit out, then the two fleets are no longer readily interchangeable.

The contractual documentation, known as MARA (Master Availablitity And Reliability Agreement)and TARA (Train Availablitity And Reliability Agreement) is available here if anyone fancies some light reading...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-express-programme-technical-specification-and-contracts

I assume that Hitachi has already accepted that its contract for 27 1/2 years will not be with the same ToC for its whole length.  Even without the franchise being split it would likely change hands. 

There is already a "via Salisbury" option ... a "via Newbury" and an "any permitted" ... a total of 12 standard class return fares from Westbury to London terminals are listed at BR Fares (http://www.brfares.com/#!fares?orig=WSB&dest=1072) .   Of course, at certain times you may do better splitting at Newbury ...

haha there is also "rumors" that the London-South Wales route will become its own franchise, or that Bristol to Portsmouth sections will become part of the South Western Railway! Its all a load of speculative rubbish! At the moment its only an idea that's been hanging around for 2 years, and what's happened in that time? Nothing! Its just Chris Grayling trying to look like a busy body who's improving rail franchises, he's an idiot who doesn't even understand railways, how can he when he hardly ever commutes on them, and takes his ministerial car to Westminster everyday!

An announcement on a potential Devon & Cornwall franchise will be made tomorrow. Absolute madness if it goes ahead. Not much support from the local MPs

 Has the process started already ?,  Crossrail taking some of the London GWR stations.

The way it was being talked about on the Today program this morning was Intercity and locals being split up sounding like it was something revolutionary making franchises smaller. Anyway, we shall see later when it's all announced.

Looking at the map of the split in the consultation document:

There would be no through trains WSM to London
There would be no services to Devon routed via Swindon and Bristol

The only through SW services from Bristol would be run by the Cross Country

And only as far as Exeter if XCs proposals aren't changed!

Isn't that all ready happening because of the IET introduction, absolutely stupid if you ask me. If you remember though back in 2014 George Osbourne said he wanted to split the Devon & Cornwall locals from the rest of the franchise, because the idiot MP's where moaning. Then a lot of people said "no" so the MP's said "no" and now that's been scrapped in favour of merging the locals and intercity services into a franchise, and everyone saying "no" again. I wonder how many proposal and how much money is being spent on all of this, until the penny finally drops. Its just a waste of civil servants time, and causing more problems than answers.

This is the map out of the consultation. So roughly speaking, one lot gets the GWML to Swansea plus the Reading diesel work, the other lot gets the Berks & Hants to Penzance plus Bristol and Exeter diesel work. 

In some respect there's the "if it aint broke, why fix it" argument. But on the other hand, the franchise is a big one, management attention will inevitably be focused on London to Cardiff and the LTV lines, so perhaps splitting it with an entity that has time and energy to deal with regional government such as the WoE, Devon & Cornwall  etc might not be a bad thing.

Also, it addresses some of the original issues with Wessex in that they didn't have an Intercity cash-cow, so were permanently the poor relation and were heavily reliant on subsidies.

Whilst it sort of follows the split on the original IET order and the 802's for Penzance, IIRC it's not entirely the case and there are some 802's intended for Oxford services. As for no services from London to WoE via Bristol, I believe that it was always the plan with the IEP's. Of course, don't forget that this is just a consultation, there's likely scope for movement if user groups kick up enough of a stink.   

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPyDjPhWsAAevv_.jpg)

One of my concerns is over fares from the west Wilts area, particularly towards London. At present there are 3 possible routes towards Reading and Paddington, via Bath, via Melksham and via Newbury, all offering advance fares.  If teh service from Bath/Chippenham is under a different franchise will we be left with advance fares via Westbury only, one train every 2 hours as against the, at least, half hourly offering at present.  Advance fares via Salisbury, when available, are generally limited to the through services and no longer offered on connecting services as once was then case.

Having just answered the consolation questionnaire and given some very strong feedback to the department for transport, I can also reveal they have plans to transfer the Greenford Branch to Chiltern Railways(heaven knows why its always been a Western railway route) and the Bristol - Salisbury - Southampton - Brighton route is to be split up, with the new GW franchise to serve Bristol to Salisbury - Southampton, and Southampton to Brighton being taken over my TSGN and run by 377's. Which is actually not a bad idea as it allows GWR to utilise more 158's elsewhere Or 166's if they ever get approved. Overall the only benefit of splitting it up is more money to the government(which is really all they care about).  Oh and one final confirmation for everyone, the GWR franchise may be extended by another 2 years until 2022.

I can for pure rolling stock logistics, there will not be many GWML DMU's operating west of Slough so getting the Greenford Unit back to Reading will be a challenge, were as for Chiltern Wimberley is not far away

True, but then it can always run as a stopping service, or if not just run fast down the mainline. The other option of course is to look at a battery operated railcar, as in the consultation there was proposals for battery or hydrogen trains to run on certain routes.

This should really have been done in 2009? when Southern actually commenced their 7 day hourly service between Brighton and Southampton.   It had been proposed in earlier consultations too, but apparently there have always been objections.   

(I hoped the consultation isn't suggesting Southern run an additional and 'off-pattern' service a couple of times a day, but surprisingly it does seem to be written this way.  All a bit odd really...)

It doesn't free up much stock though, there isn't even one train's worth east of Southampton over the course of day, only a few hours taken for a couple of arrivals and departures from Brighton, the first of which only comes from Portsmouth.

Paul

South of Westbury, it's a unit until 11:39 and from 13:32 to 19:39.   There are at least 2 other services per hour south of Salisbury ... fly in the ointment is the awful connections between GWR (Cardiff) and Southern (Southampton to Brighton) services.   More anon ... and I'll move this to the looking forward thread.

I was assuming that (as described) it would still run as far as Southampton, like the other short workings that currently terminate there.   But there is certainly the additional question over the few short workings to Southampton given the main clock face service provided by the GW Portsmouth and SWR Romseys...

Connections can possibly be improved though, and eastbound passengers going as far as Barnham make a good connection with the SN Victoria train (Mon - Sat).   Westbound connections off the Brighton are pretty hopeless, but they do work with the SWR to Salisbury.   

It really comes down to what proportion of passengers are actually travelling over the extremities.   There are practical options existing for the middle of the 'overlap' between Southern and Western networks...

Paul

Precisely.

The other possible option is for a West Ealing - to somewhere on the Chilterns service which could take some load off of Marylebone which would also give the Chilterns some connectivity to Crossrail

Another option (probably with some traction already as it is in published route studies) is additional "Chiltern" terminal platform(s) at Old Oak Common, with services operated from somewhere such as High Wycombe straight down the NNML corridor.   

Perhaps they should do both...

Paul

Presumably with an increased service over that currently provided on that route  ;D

Isn't HS2 taking over the NNML? I suppose it would make sense for Chiltern to take over the Greenford Branch, As for the Bristol to Brighton route, I believe its more to do with the irregular timetable, but then even if it free up 2 more units, that's 2 extra 3 car units GWR could do with. And the increased frequency between Bristol, Salisbury and Southampton might even help with passenger overcrowding.

In what sense? The original plan to built HS2 on the trackbed past Hanger Lane has been binned. This is in part due to the recent (and somewhat damascene) realisation that tunnelling is cheaper than building on the surface. Or, at least, it is in crowded places like Ealing when you've already wound up your TBM and set it going.

There will still be a number of access and ventilation shafts, and work sites for them, which will close the line. Or at least that's what some of the plans show. However, the plans also seem to show all the land acquisitions originally intended. It may merely identify the parcels, while the schedule no longer lists them as being acquired, but who knows?

To add to stuving's reply, the decision to tunnel under the Northolt corridor was announced in 2013, following a consultation on various changes during 2012.   Not that recent a decision, yet HS2 takeover of the NNML is still regularly mentioned...

The exact position of the vent shafts was still to be decided back then, but given the width of most of it I can't see that being a stopper.  NR are routinely making proposals to use the route.

Paul

these are not just a ventilation shaft, they are actually "intervention shafts" TSI's" were interrupted to me every 1km however I believe the current thinking is 500m.  Also it may be the case that NNML ownership is given to HS2 to allow for construction access they may also build a maintenance access line off of NNML to HS2 for engineering trains 

Since the letting of construction contracts has already started, it's hard to see the current plans changing. And in February 2017 (after the bill passed) it was confirmed that these intervention shafts would ignore the 1 km spacing and adopt "alternative technical solutions that provide an equivalent safety level, agreed with [the ORR]". That allows the spacing to be up to 3 km, though they are putting in cross-passages at less than 300 m spacing too.

Only one of the headhouses (at Greenford) severs the NNML, between Greenford East and Greenford West Junctions (i.e. the north side of the triangle). Even then there's room for at least one line to get past, but as the site isn't that cramped the headhouse position was a pretty free choice anyway.

More significantly, the line is also blocked at its eastern end, by the new arrangement planned for Old Oak Common. There are turnback sidings that curve round that way so as to fit in, and while again there should be enough space (especially if the new NR substation was put on he site of the old one) there may be nowhere sensible to attach the line to in the new arrangement.

However, the formation does seem to stay intact from Ruislip to Greenford, which is all Chiltern would need. It is striking, however, that HS2 never mention it even when discussing transport infrastructure in the Northolt corridor and how HS2 will affect it!

PS: There's an autotransformer station at Greenford too - on the surface, unlike the one at Stepney Green - and its labelled an EFATS.

There are a number of options for the West Ealing / Chiltern route with interchanges with the Central Line.  When the HS2 station complex is developed at OOC an additional Central Line station at OOC or some means to link North Acton to OOC HS2 station and the proposed North London Line station are all options I feel should be explored.

OOC has the potential to be a bigger rail hub than Stratford

If OOC is to be so big then diverting Inner Chiltern Line services to Crossrail would look a very good idea. 

I was wondering what happened about the idea of Chiltern running to OOC. The answer seems to be, in part, in the West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study (https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/West-Midlands-and-Chilterns-Route-Study-Final.pdf) (final version published in August). This includes such an option for extra capacity not easily provided at Marylebone, and says:

As to Chiltern's view, this comes from a meeting reported by Steve Baker, MP for Wycombe, with Managing Director of Chiltern Railways, Dave Penney:

Note that NR's option (table 20) includes an upgrade and double tracking of the line.

To my mind the important thing is to preserve the space for such a double track along the route, whether or not a specific use is now planned. Telling HS2 and Crossrail planners that it is "abandoned", and can be built on for the most trivial of advantages, made no sense. Assembling such a long thin landholding through London suburbs is very very hard (and so costly), verging on the impossible. It sounds from those quotes as if the HS2 plans are being altered even at this late stage; it's only a lean-to to the headhouse at Greenford that was the problem.

Routing Crossrail via Greenford to High Wycombe (western corridor C) was rejected at an early stage, mainly because Chiltern Metropolitain, and Central line services didn't need that much help. Part of the argument was about sharing tracks with Chiltern, so would not apply to a short extension to a better railhead.  I guess there's not a big difference between meeting Chiltern at OOC and running  non-stop to Ruislip and meeting there - apart from fighting over land at OOC with the developers.

I always wondered if there was any merit in a Metrowest franchise rather than have it under the control of First/GWR. Given that it does not actually exist as yet, it would not be a runner in the next round of franchises but a fragmentation of the franchise might allow for this in the future.

I take that back, having checked the drawing. The headhouse at Greenford is, as I said, clear of the NNML tracks. The larger outline sticking out and overlapping the tracks is the shaft, and shown as underground. So it must be an expansion of the shaft into a cavern at tunnel level. Vivat the NNML!

Chiltern were looking to not terminate at OOC (lack of platform space likely) but return towards their route via the freight(?) branch to the east of OOC, thus using OOC as a circular route back towards Ruislips. (Does that make sense? I know what I mean, just not the names of the lines invloved)

The shaft after construction will be capped off, the access for intervention purposes and service will be quite small in comparison therefore a line can be "bridged" over the top