Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 => Topic started by: PhilWakely on December 20, 2018, 12:16:48



Title: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: PhilWakely on December 20, 2018, 12:16:48
19.5.21 EDIT - jump to http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20846.msg306304#msg306304 for the press release and publication of the review, May 2021[/b]



I'm not sure whether this has already been mentioned on the forum............

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/williams-rail-review (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/williams-rail-review)

Mods: Feel free to delete this if it has already been mentioned elsewhere or edit these comments if not



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on December 24, 2018, 08:13:38
I'm not sure whether this has already been mentioned on the forum............

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/williams-rail-review (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/williams-rail-review)


Don't you just love those consultations that take place over Christmas and the New Year - they give groups and organisations such an excellent opportunity (not!) to co-ordinate and think through joined up responses.

Quote
To inform the review’s initial ‘listening’ phase, where possible we ask that evidence is submitted by 18 January 2019. However the evidence portal will remain open until the end of May 2019 and all responses will be reviewed by the team. In the later phases of the review we will use the evidence portal to seek input on more specific questions.

You can contact the Rail Review team and feed in evidence at any time using the email rail.review@dft.gov.uk.

Quote
Consultation description

This call for evidence is to support the Rail Review, led by independent chair Keith Williams. The review was established to recommend the most appropriate organisational and commercial frameworks to support the delivery of the government’s vision for the railway.

The review invites written contributions to inform its work on any or all of the review principles, as set out in its terms of reference:
*commercial models for the provision of rail services that prioritise the interests of passengers and taxpayers
* rail industry structures that promote clear accountability and effective joint-working for both passengers and the freight sector
* a system that is financially sustainable and able to address long-term cost pressures
* a railway that is able to offer good value fares for passengers, while keeping costs down for taxpayers
* improved industrial relations, to reduce disruption and improve reliability for passengers
* a rail sector with the agility to respond to future challenges and opportunities

"Franchising is broken - what should we do NOW?"   ;D ;D


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on January 15, 2019, 10:43:52
This thread is ... notable by its lack of activity ... on what is potentially a pretty big topic.  At yesterday's TWSW board meeting, we had a bit of. look at this consultation and will be looking to try to interpret it at the 20th March general meeting with. view to feedbacks well before the final close date.   On one hand there is a lot to consider, on the other hand so many constraints put on the term of reference that I really wonder if it will actually be able to consider them.  The chair of the consulting committee suggests he / it is independent, yet it looks so constrained that there question arises "can it be truly indepenendent?".   The question also arises as to whether the consultation / report will actually be welcomes / needed if there are significant governance changes in the next few months; I don't think we can answer that, but certainly a ready-written "independent" report for a government that's so busy doing other things it wants to just "go with a flow" could just pick up the report and implement key recommendations.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Dispatch Box on January 15, 2019, 12:04:57
What do we want!! A reliable and punctual railway, When do we want it?, We want it now!!!!.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eightonedee on January 15, 2019, 22:35:30
The problem with these terms of reference is that they do not really recognise the reality of funding infrastructure or evaluating the benefits it brings. It also ignores rule 1 of life, captured in that old northern expression "thee can't get owt for nowt"

On a bullet point by bullet point basis-

1 -
Quote
*commercial models for the provision of rail services that prioritise the interests of passengers and taxpayers

Unless taxpayers who do not travel by train are happy for all requests made for rail investment to improve matters for passengers be met whatever the cost, you will not do so. You might be able to lever in a profit-making layer in the rail industry you can franchise out, but I would guess most rail infrastructure (like most other transport infrastructure, education, health, social services, armed forces, police, courts, waste disposal etc etc) cannot stand on its own feet, and taxpayers have to support it (and them), and we cannot readily measure how much benefit society as a whole benefits, but you sure notice as a consumer of such services when they are not there or do not work well.

2 -   
Quote
* rail industry structures that promote clear accountability and effective joint-working for both passengers and the freight sector

Immediately you break up the delivery vertically, and put financial penalties in for whichever layer is held responsible for anything that goes wrong, you encourage those responsible for each layer to try to blame the others so they pick up the bill.
Unless you have one organisation responsible for everything from construction, maintenance, rolling stock, signalling and information it will always be the other guy's fault, and if it is all one organisation, it will always be someone in another department's fault, not mine, if something goes wrong.

Someone has to make decisions on how everything works overall and be the arbiter when interest conflict.

How about something radical - the only financial penalties should be for a failure to investigate and report all problems over a certain threshold (e.g. trains more than 30 minutes late, line closed for more than 15 minutes)? However it will cost to set up the relevant organisation - and may not actually deliver any improvements?

3 and 4 -
Quote
* a system that is financially sustainable and able to address long-term cost pressures
* a railway that is able to offer good value fares for passengers, while keeping costs down for taxpayers

See point 1 above!

5 -
Quote
* improved industrial relations, to reduce disruption and improve reliability for passengers

Ball's in the court of RMT - see continuing depressing story of DOO. A review like this will not change ingrained attitudes

6 -
Quote
* a rail sector with the agility to respond to future challenges and opportunities

It takes investment - see point 1

Conclusion - sadly, looks like a talking shop.

What we need is

- an examination of what has gone wrong in major infrastructure projects that have gone well over budget and program so lessons can be learnt to minimise repetition (insofar as human nature allows - see insightful comments by others on the Crossrail thread) in the hope (vain?) that we might get better value, or at least have a better idea how much major investment will really cost and how long it will take to deliver,

- some way of ensuring that any system rewards good passenger service (especially mitigating problems, provision of accurate and consistent information, and innovation in passenger service) whether by franchisees, contractors or employees.

- cross party and cross societal appreciation that infrastructure costs, you cannot immediately see the benefit but without it we are all worse off.

Which is probably also pie in the sky.....






Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on January 17, 2019, 09:42:08
The problem with these terms of reference is that they do not really recognise the reality of funding infrastructure or evaluating the benefits it brings. It also ignores rule 1 of life, captured in that old northern expression "thee can't get owt for nowt"

[snip]

Conclusion - sadly, looks like a talking shop.

What we need is

[snip]

Which is probably also pie in the sky.....


Also sadly, I'm inclined to agree.  But perhaps we should try / take any opportunity to input, however much we consider the  terms of reference straight-jacketed.   

I am reminded back to 2005 when I started campaigning against what I felt was a poor decision ... "we did a consultation but only got 7 responses on this" said the people running it.   Had they got not 7 but 70 or even 700, it may not have made any difference - but at least that would have refuted the "no pubic interest" argument, and it would have certainly helped a lot of people think about what they wanted.

By the way - the decision in 2005 was based on 2 lines on page 70 of a 200 page document ... not well advertised, and no surprise at all than the response rate was low.   How better informed we are on most consultations these days, and how better we ourselves are organised to share their presence.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on February 26, 2019, 18:14:30
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47378448

Quote
Britain's rail franchise system no longer delivers clear benefits and cannot continue as it is, says the man leading a review of the network.

Keith Williams will say in a speech later the industry is not responding to fast-changing consumer demands.
Rail franchising - contracting out passenger services - has drawn heavy criticism, with some contracts failing and customers complaints rising.

The rail industry said it accepts that the status quo cannot continue.

Mr Williams, appointed by the government last year to lead a "root-and-branch" review of the rail network, will give an update on progress in a speech on Tuesday evening.

But according to comments released ahead of the speech, he is due to say: "I have heard a great deal about the franchising model… driving growth in passengers and benefits to services. But with this growth, the needs of passengers have changed, whilst many of the basic elements of our rail system have not kept pace.

"Put bluntly, franchising cannot continue the way it is today. It is no longer delivering clear benefits for either taxpayers or farepayers."

[continues]


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: SandTEngineer on February 26, 2019, 20:41:32
The full report can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/781749/role-of-railway-evidence-paper-rail-review.pdf

Having had a quick read I must say I learnt a new word today......

Agglomeration
Agglomeration arises when transport links better enable
individuals and firms to derive productivity benefits from
locating in closer proximity to other individuals and firms.

 ::) :P


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on February 26, 2019, 22:45:20
The full report can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/781749/role-of-railway-evidence-paper-rail-review.pdf

To clarify what this document is - it's called an Evidence Paper:
Quote
Engaging the people, businesses and organisations using and running the railway is critical. At each stage of the Review, we will seek to understand the full range of perspectives and options in pursuit of the right answers.

To support this engagement we are publishing a series of evidence papers to inform the debate. This is the first of these papers. They draw on the extensive engagement with passengers, the rail industry, and wider stakeholders undertaken by the Review to date. They also draw on responses that we have received so far to our Call for Evidence launched in December 2018.2 (While we have yet to fully quality assure all the material received, we have included some extracts in the papers to provide the fullest possible range of insights.)

The papers provide factual summaries of a number of key issues in the rail industry. They are focussed on evidence, and do not seek to set out options or potential models. The Independent Chair of the Review will be setting out some of his early thinking on these areas in a series of speeches in parallel with publishing these evidence papers.

This first paper reviews the role of the railway in Great Britain, and its costs and benefits. Further papers will be published over the coming weeks. These will examine the experience of railway users (both passengers and freight); the organisation of the railways in Britain and other countries; and rail’s role in
the wider transport system, including in the context of potential future technological, economic and societal changes.

We are determined that each stage of the Review will be properly evidence-based. So, having published the papers we will use the Call for Evidence to invite formal feedback, alongside our ongoing engagement with stakeholders.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Western Pathfinder on February 26, 2019, 23:05:54
The Bradshaw Address
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-bradshaw-address-by-keith-williams.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eightonedee on February 27, 2019, 11:51:06
Thanks WP for posting that link. It is a rather more nuanced statement than has been generally reported, and I am pleased that he emphasises the needs and perceptions of passengers. Perhaps my initial response was a bit too cynical?

It is though disappointing to see language mangled as highlighted by S&TEngineer - Agglomeration does not mean that, it simply means lumping things together. I think the word they were looking for is "connectivity" - see Cristaller's Central Place theory that I learnt about over 45 years ago at school! If they used it, it would be rather clearer that the quality of communications networks serving a place or settlement are probably the biggest factor in its long term sustainable (sorry - another over- and misused word) enduring success.

 


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on February 27, 2019, 12:08:50
It is though disappointing to see language mangled as highlighted by S&TEngineer - Agglomeration does not mean that, it simply means lumping things together.

Isn't that word 'aggregation' though?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eightonedee on February 27, 2019, 13:01:08
Here's what the on-line Oxford Dictionary says

Quote
agglomeration
NOUN
A mass or collection of things; an assemblage.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: rogerpatenall on February 27, 2019, 15:53:56
Here's what the on-line Oxford Dictionary says

Quote
agglomeration
NOUN
A mass or collection of things; an assemblage.

An oft used word in French usually to describe any urban area.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on March 13, 2019, 19:44:52
Here's another hint offered by Keith Williams, this time addressing yesterday's board meeting of transport Focus. As picked up by City AM (http://www.cityam.com/274564/rail-review-head-keith-williams-hints-compensation-role):
Quote
The former British Airways chief executive tasked with a full-scale review of the railways has hinted that the industry regulator could be tasked with handling compensation claims.

Keith Williams, who was appointed by the government to carry out the review in the wake of last year's May timetable chaos, suggested the rail industry could learn from the airline industry in tasking the regulator with handling compensation claims.

Speaking at a board meeting of the independent watchdog Transport Focus, Williams said European legislation changed the way customers claimed compensation from airlines and became a benchmark for how claims were made.

"I actually do think it brought benefit in terms of the airline and in terms of ensuring that we put regularity and punctuality at the heart of what we did – if we couldn't do that, we'd be paying out compensation," he said.

Williams said the routes to claiming compensation were "not obvious" and that it needed to be "made clear". He said he has asked the rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), to look at how it thought compensation should look in the industry.

"In the airlines industry, the Civil Aviation Authority has that role," he said. "Whether we need the same in rail is a question for the review."
...

I assume the headline was based on a misreading - Williams wasn't suggesting the ORR should handle claims, but that they should be responsible for how it is done.

Even then, I'm not sure what he's going on about, as I don't think the CAA has much of a role in dictating airlines' compensation systems, and not much more in telling them what they should be paying out for. Air travel claims are all fairly big, compared to rail fares, so a different system would in any case be appropriate.

If he's saying that someone (DfT or ORR or whoever) should write one set of rules, rather than allowing TOCs to make up their own passenger charters (including how the claims systems should work, i.e. how it looks to the customer) I suspect most members here would agree.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: SandTEngineer on March 19, 2019, 13:56:12
I haven't read it yet and its a bit long to quote here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/keith-williams-at-accelerate-rail-2019


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 14, 2019, 08:58:33
Bump

This thread is ... notable by its lack of activity ... on what is potentially a pretty big topic. ...

I am prompted by certain people (who should know better and post themselves) to remind members looking forward to the future of rail in the UK to answer this review.

As a reminder (somewhat) of what we're looking at 'solving', {{here}} (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/14/virgin-west-coast-train-franchise-branson-dividends) is a link to today's Guardian which does far more to criticise the current franchised system that to suggest a constructive alternative;  it offers brick bats all around and lacks plaudits!


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 23, 2019, 10:10:39
Williams could be so important (if it come up with sense and is adopted) ... yet seems so removed from the day to day traveller and member here that it's generated little response.   Perhaps I can try to light a fire under the discussion again - here's a link to a RailFuture summary ...

https://www.railfuture.org.uk/Press+release+27th+February+2019


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Timmer on April 23, 2019, 11:03:22
Possibly cynicism that past reviews have come up with little new or have been ignored by Dft/Government.

Personally I hope whatever is recommended is taken up as it can't keep on going the way it is.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 23, 2019, 11:19:24
Possibly cynicism that past reviews have come up with little new or have been ignored by Dft/Government.

Indeed ... in something of a coincidence, this (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/day113.html) came up on my 'campaign' feed this morning - prepared a few days ahead.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 23, 2019, 11:22:18
I think the importance of Williams largely depends on how much life this current government has left in it. Given that Grayling will not countenance renationalisation, it is very unlikely that Williams will serve up any options that include renationalisation.

This means that if Corbyn and co get in any time soon, then any Williams recommendations will become irrelevant, and be quickly superseded by whatever review process the new lot put in place...

My personal view is that the top priority should be root and branch reform of Network Rail, as a fit for purpose NR could facilitate a number of positive options, either in a private or nationalised system. However, the way Network Rail currently operates acts as a dead weight on the entire industry, which is why change there first is so crucial in order to enable change elsewhere.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Timmer on April 23, 2019, 11:26:25
My personal view is that the top priority should be root and branch reform of Network Rail, as a fit for purpose NR could facilitate a number of positive options, either in a private or nationalised system. However, the way Network Rail currently operates acts as a dead weight on the entire industry, which is why change there first is so crucial in order to enable change elsewhere.
Do you think Andrew Haines is up to the job of achieving that Lee?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 23, 2019, 14:39:43
My personal view is that the top priority should be root and branch reform of Network Rail, as a fit for purpose NR could facilitate a number of positive options, either in a private or nationalised system. However, the way Network Rail currently operates acts as a dead weight on the entire industry, which is why change there first is so crucial in order to enable change elsewhere.
Do you think Andrew Haines is up to the job of achieving that Lee?

Yes and no.

I have watched with interest you debate Climate Change (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=21434.0) with other forum members, particularly with regard to the view of some that we've done the easy stuff so far, and now we need to do the hard stuff.

I think a similar situation exists with Andrew Haines and Network Rail. So far, he has overseen some small but newsworthy measures designed to build confidence with the public, such as scrapping toilet charges at busy stations. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=21310.0) However, now he really needs to tackle the hard stuff.

First of all, I dont really have a problem with Haines himself. I felt he was a good CEO for FGW, and I welcomed his appointment at Network Rail. I have expressed some irritation at the slow speed he appears to be moving at times, but this is Network Rail, and there are far worse people you could have at the helm.

Similarly, I dont have a problem with those at the business end building, fixing and maintaining things - the "Electric train"'s of the world - the vast majority of whom do excellent work day in, day out and tend to be happy to explain what they do to the likes of us as well.

In my view, the real problem lies with those management types in the middle who take regular decisions that have a huge impact on rail users with seemingly very little scrutiny being applied, like a modern day rail version of The Untouchables. These people very rarely break cover and face the public, but when they do, the results can be very illuminating. I remember one First Great Western (FGW) Stakeholder Conference around a decade ago, after a sustained campaigning effort to put the case for a station at Corsham had taken place, when some such NR middle management type started his presentation to a stunned crowd with the words "I am here to tell you that a station at Corsham will never open". Another, after receiving a carefully-crafted and well-written case outline for why Pilning should retain its footbridge, wrote a very short reply along the lines of "We are not interested in discussing Pilning, you people are just a nuisance and should stop harrassing us".

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. These people are very firmly of the view that they are always right, everyone else is wrong, and having decided so, then that is the end of the matter. "And who are you to question us anyway, you are just mere passengers, we are the professionals".

One of the consequences of this is that the failure of Network Rail to step up in this regard has given an excuse to other key rail industry players not to step up either - So a TOC can say "We cant provide a station at x because Network Rail..." and the DfT can say "We cant finish off electrification to y because Network Rail...", and on it goes.

It wasnt always like that. The early 1980s example of when passengers and supporters of newly-reopened Templecombe station who knew what was needed service and infrastructure-wise to build growth came up against a similar culture and attitude in BR middle management is a case in point - but the difference is that both sides worked to build trust successfully to build that growth and together enabled the station to go from strength to strength, as shown in this YouTube Video. (https://youtu.be/-EsXAxKh9SI)

One of the key reasons we are where we are is that successive governments have focussed on ineffective piecemeal reforms of the franchising system, and seemingly just hoped Network Rail was capable of reforming itself, when it clearly isnt in the areas that matter - ie in how to deliver what we, the passengers and customers, want and need. The time has now come for Network Rail (NR) to be physically shown what needs to be done - and I have suggested elsewhere (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=21411.msg262864#msg262864) how respected passenger/community representatives such as grahame and RichardB, along with similar representatives from the Railfreight sector, who have a proven track record in suggesting solutions that work for everyone, and have demonstrated they have the required knowledge of how things work operationally, could be brought into the process to help reform how Network Rail works with passengers and customers in this respect.

Those Network Rail (NR) middle managers who are happy to take on board and take forward those inputs should be encouraged to do so, and those who are unwilling to change should be politely told that their future lies elsewhere.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 23, 2019, 16:45:13
Network Rail used to have a Community Rail liaison specialist who was well informed on Community and its interaction with Rail as well as on Network Rail stuff, but they re-organised and his role was split between existing Network Rail managers in the various areas.  In principle, having local Network Rail work with communities has sense - except the role got dropped onto those who took it over as a minor part of their roles, and one I suspect many of them had little experience or enthusiasm for.   You can read more recent writings of Jerry Swift ((here)) (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-review-legislative-framework-community-rail-jerry-swift/).


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 23, 2019, 21:51:19
One of the other interesting things is that Williams looks at Network Rail re-arrangement ... at the same time that Network Rail says it's in the process of re-arrangement in fact starting in a coupe of months then running for 18 months

From the Network Rail Putting Passengers First (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/putting-passengers-first/) page

Quote
When will these changes happen?

Changes are planned in a series of phases.

The first phase, the formation of the new regions, is planned to take place in June 2019 following a period of consultation. Some time will be allowed to let these changes bed in before moving on to the next phase.

It's important that the changes be made when the timing is right and the network is ready, as this will deliver better outcomes for rail users. The aim is to complete the whole programme of change by the end of 2020.

I was taught to give things time to settle before you evaluate them and see about further adjustments.  And to change things one at a time.  This would, it seems, not be applicable for some reason in this case.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 24, 2019, 00:07:24
Promising to save the passengers by re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic is not historically the wisest way forward. The trick is to get everybody safely off the bloody boat.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 24, 2019, 09:03:21
Interesting article on Virgin's Williams submission - https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/virgin-trains-reserve-seat-tickets-long-distance-rail-crowding-compulsory-a8883396.html

Highlights include:

- "Turn up and go” principle to be scrapped in favour of an airline-style system with compulsory reservations and a strict limit on passenger numbers.

- Train slots to be auctioned off to different operators, with the taxpayer benefiting from the revenue generated, with a trial on the East Coast Main Line.

- Public-service operator could run long-distance slots which the market believes are not commercially viable.

- Change the stopping pattern of long-distance slots, so they do not serve short-distance commuter markets.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Robin Summerhill on April 24, 2019, 10:05:46
Interesting article on Virgin's Williams submission - https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/virgin-trains-reserve-seat-tickets-long-distance-rail-crowding-compulsory-a8883396.html

Highlights include:

- "Turn up and go” principle to be scrapped in favour of an airline-style system with compulsory reservations and a strict limit on passenger numbers.

- Train slots to be auctioned off to different operators, with the taxpayer benefiting from the revenue generated, with a trial on the East Coast Main Line.

- Public-service operator could run long-distance slots which the market believes are not commercially viable.

- Change the stopping pattern of long-distance slots, so they do not serve short-distance commuter markets.

The first thing I did after I read the Indy piece was to look for a date, just to make sure it didn't first appear 23 days ago ;)

Then I thought more deeply about it and consulted SWMBO. There might be a 56% opposition rate in a Twitter poll but there is a 100% opposition rate in this house...

Airlines, Eurostar and the like can get away with using this system because their services are generally self-contained. Virgin trains connect at many stations around the country with trains run by other TOCs. So, for example, when I was off on my travels with a 14 day all line rail rover last year, on a few occasions I caught a GWR train to Bristol, a XC train to Brum, then picked up a Virgin service to go north up the WCML. What would have happened if the GWR or XC service was late meaning I had missed my connection at New Street? "Sorry chum, your reservation was for the 1115, so you can't travel on our trains today" ???

Although an all line rover is a special case, those circumstances would be by no means unique. There will be people all over the country on this very day who will be using Virgin for only a part of their longer journey.

I could see such a move by any TOC leading to large reductions in revenue (and refunds, incidentally, because they would be refusing to provide a service the passenger had already paid for in good faith).

And over-arching all this, of course, is Virgin potentially losing its franchise next year anyway, so should we really be even bothering to discuss it?  Is it another case of "run a flag up the pole and see who salutes?" :)


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 24, 2019, 10:16:38
Interesting article on Virgin's Williams submission

Highlights include:

- "Turn up and go” principle to be scrapped in favour of an airline-style system with compulsory reservations and a strict limit on passenger numbers.

- Change the stopping pattern of long-distance slots, so they do not serve short-distance commuter markets.

Above distilled further ...

Personally, it would be a serious dis-service to me to have to reserve in advance. But then how unusual is my scenario of working a long distance from home for a few days, and being unsure until an hour or so before travelling home of the time I would finish / train I could catch?   Danger of being stranded in ... Carlisle, Motherwell, Holyhead, Fishguard, Edinburgh as the last train goes or "sorry sir, the only seat left is in First Class at £249.00 single".   Written based on a similar experience in France where it equally didn't work for me.

I am not averse to some crack, reservation only services provided that there's an alternative service - on long distance, perhaps my benchmark would be that it's OK to have a "reservation only" train provided that any passengers left behind / travelling on the day can leave later and get to the original planned destination less than an hour after they would have done if able to get on the 'Limited'.

Commuter / regional markets v long distance is an old chestnut.  Could works well on the "top link" routes - perhaps 5 or 10 of them,  provided that there is capacity on the line and trains can easily and reliably pass. But on so many routes it would kill the finances to double up long distance and commuter services, and / or cause service numbers in one or both groups to plummet.

All lines are different ...  London to Brighton is 54 miles; London to Norwich is 115 miles; London to Cardiff is 151 miles; London to Leeds is 191 miles; London to Plymouth is 215 miles; London to Glasgow is 411 miles; London to Aberdeen is 545 miles.    Three 'crack' expresses daily - Aberdeen to London - might take a significant parts of the market.  Three 'crack' expresses Brighton to London - well, it's "Bring back the Brighton Belle", but meets my spec in terms of fallback trains.

[Saw Robin Summerhill's post as I came to post this; adding it in parallel ... largely agree that it looks very much that the proposals might, if implemented, be rather good business for next generation Virgin Rail; IMHO they've done a rather good job in many ways, yet I'm just a bit worried that they're looking - as any business must - at their own future as they put these proposals forward]


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 24, 2019, 10:22:00
Definately news today, Robin - That's why I posted it.

Plenty of other links to choose from if you dont like the Indy too:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-warns-of-total-chaos-as-virgin-demands-a-free-for-all/

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17593663.stop-passengers-boarding-long-distance-trains-without-seat-reservations-virgin/

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/traffic-and-travel/trains-to-become-like-planes-passengers-should-not-be-allowed-to-board-long-distance-trains-without-a-reservation-rail-company-suggests-1-9728791


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Robin Summerhill on April 24, 2019, 12:01:20
Having mulled this over a bit more whilst waiting for a bus to come back from shopping, the myriad reasons why this wouldn't work are coming to mind.

(Just for clarification, I spent the last 20 years or so of my working life taking other people's strategies and visions and turning them into practical courses of action, so the practicalities of any given situation always interest me)

I agree with Graham's post directly after mine, and of course we have had this situation in the UK in the past for certain specific trains, anything from the Pullmans of old to WR seat regulation tickets in the 70s. But in both cases there were alternative trains (even if it was travelling at daft o'clock in the morning or at night to avoid seat regulation tickets). But things have moved on and we now have umpteen TOCs working quasi-independently in the same industry, very much like airlines.

However, if you fly and your plane is late and you miss your onward connection, your airline is legally obliged to find you an alternative flight, even if you did not book your connecting flight with them (I didn't realise that their obligations extended that far until it came within a whisker of happening to be in Johannesburg last year). Extending that principle to the UK rail network and using my example of a journey involving GWR, XC and Virgin:

The GWR train is late into Bristol so I miss my XC connection at 0830. Let's say it is now 0850 and XC's next train north is at 0900 (that was an actual scenario during my rail rover tour when a door fault on a 150 at Bath caused the 0630 PAD to BRI to sit in Sydney Gardens for 25 minutes and then make a special stop at OLF to pick up passengers in place of the failed DMU) so I have no time to speak to a GWR helpdesk at Bristol. The 0900 XC runs to time and I get to New Street just in time to see the tail lamp of my Virgin connection vanishing into the tunnel. So now I go to the GWR helpdesk at Brum. Oh, wait...

So I go to the Virgin helpdesk instead. They tell me that it's not their fault, Guv, and you need to speak to GWR because their late-running train caused the problem. But there are no GWR Customer Service staff this side of Cheltenham or Oxford. I suppose I could ring GWR, and after I'd sat on the phone for 10 minutes listening to a moronic recording telling me that all out operators are busy at the moment and how much we value your call, and have you looked at the FAQs on our website, and so on, I then have to explain my current predicament. In the meantime, umpteen Virgin trains are arriving and departing half empty because a signal failure at Shrewsbury and a points failure at Bescot have buggered up hundreds of other people's travel plans that day that also included a leg on a Virgin train...

OK I accept that that lot is an exaggeration for humorous effect, but there is an underlying principle there that would have Questions asked in The House if this hare-brained scheme ever got off the ground.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on April 25, 2019, 00:27:50
In case anyone might want to read Virgin's proposal (https://www.virgintrains.co.uk/about/media-room#/pressreleases/virgin-trains-unveils-radical-proposals-to-reform-rail-by-importing-airline-model-2863276) before commenting - and lack of it doesn't seem to have held anyone back so far - the (quite substantial)_ text is here (https://www.mynewsdesk.com/material/pressrelease/2863276/download?resource_type=resource_attached_pdf_document). I've been bemused (and amused) to see everyone jump in to comment on one small part of the proposal, when there are far more problematic elements to it.

My bemusement is partly at the consensus view that for long-distance trains to only carry passengers seated is a dangerously alien, unBriish, and unworkable idea. It looks to me more long one of the defining factors of the "proper long-distance trains" that Broadgage has been banging on about for ages.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 25, 2019, 03:32:57
To be fair, the Independent article focussed on 4 different aspects of the Virgin proposal (which I listed in my post) and grahame addressed 2 of those in his post, not just the reservation issue.

Also, grahame states that he is not averse to some crack, reservation only services provided that there's an alternative service, so I'm not sure that there is the clear consensus view against that you suggest. From what I can see, both grahame and Robin have their own interesting, informed and informative takes on the issue.

I agree we should read the whole proposal and widen the debate accordingly though, so thanks for posting it. It has certainly kept me up later than I intended tonight  ;D


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: jamestheredengine on April 25, 2019, 07:56:59
The plus side of making long-distance services all reserved is that it makes it easier to separate flows. For instance, an all-reserved South Wales/South West service would have the effect of removing Paddington-Reading passengers onto an unreserved mid-distance services, especially if Reading could be priced at the same price as, say, Swindon or Westbury on the reserved trains.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: bradshaw on April 25, 2019, 08:28:14
Having taken stuving’s advice and read the report there is much to digest. However, the argument using aircraft reservations has some limitation. The weight of an aircraft is a significant factor in the amount of lift the wings have to generate to achieve flight. It is safety critical, so you cannot afford to overload an aircraft.

There is also their discussion on separating long distance and commuter flows and the practically of so doing.

The suggestion of 20 year awards is one that has been put forward by many people and the success of Chiltern in developing their line points to that being a way forward.
They also discuss the future of Network Rail and further devolution. However there surely has to be a limit to its fragmentation in relation to major projects.

There are many other aspects that the paper goes into.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on April 25, 2019, 09:58:41
Oh dear, Lee, was I a bit provocative there? And yes, I did judge "consensus" just by the volume of screaming and shouting.

But to pick up on one of my gratuitous sarcasms, what do the unBritish do? My universal counterexample is of course France, where the split between long distance (TGV) and local trains (RER, or Transilien in Paris) is quite clear. That is, apart for the odd collection of services that don't fit (Intercités), answering inexactly to CrossCountry. Not only that, but TGV ticketing is airline-like with reservations included, and there is some element of competing SNCF brands (and preparations are being made for open access).

Local services are of course run by regions, some of which have been muttering rebelliously about private contractors for a while now. And yesterday Hauts-de-France announced (https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/hauts-de-france-starts-regional-tendering.html) they intend to start the process, following PACA* who were first to make the threat and made their decision last month.

I don't think Virgin's suggestions for local service make much sense, and they almost say that themselves. I don't think they are really interested; their main motivation was to rescue the elements of a market-based structure that are still relevant (or at least have respectable economic credentials) and junk the bits that don't work in a capacity-limited railway. But the gaps in the proposal are as interesting as the contents.

*Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azure


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 25, 2019, 10:07:09
That was actually me trying to be balanced! - From patronising to a bulwark against provocation - Its back to Social Skills Workshop for me  ;D


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: CyclingSid on April 25, 2019, 14:43:56
On the basis of not wanting the Reading passengers cluttering the South Wales/South West service, the same could apply to buses. The Newbury service from Reading is often packed with passengers who don't go beyond the boundary of Reading. Not sure all reserved buses would help the current ails of the bus industry.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Robin Summerhill on April 25, 2019, 20:44:32
Having felt suitably admonished for not reading the report and wading in and only commenting on a newspaper article, I have spent much of today going through that report in detail. Suffice to say I have had more enjoyable days…

Nevertheless, now I’ve done it I can regale other forum members with my findings. As putting sections of the report into forum quotes is a little time-consuming (and personally my eyes have difficulty in reading forum quotes anyway – the font colour and quote background colour seem to cancel each other out), quotations from the report will be in italics below.

“Our submission is deliberately high-level and ideas-driven, rather than a detailed examination of the precise nature of operation. In this way we aim to spark debate and discussion, and to give the Review team food for thought”

They can say that again…  You don’t need to read very far into the report before it dawns that is, to use management speak, “Blue Sky Thinking.” Others may see it as an abject failure to see the wood for the trees, because many practical problems jump out as you wade on through it.

“The vast majority of long-distance rail travel is discretionary. Most customers are choosing to visit family or friends, using the train for a weekend break or holiday, or visiting business contacts. They have chosen to meet face-to-face, rather than use video-conferencing or the telephone, and they have chosen to travel by train rather than road or air. Whilst all of their reasons for travel are important, they are fundamentally discretionary in nature.”

Virgin will, presumably, have their own figures to back this up. Whether they have quantitative data about the reasons for the discretionary travel is less clear. As I see it, there are many distinct types of discretionary travel and to lump them all together is unwise. People using a train for a weekend break could probably specify their outbound and return trains before they travel. Those visiting business contacts (as in the case of Graham’s examples) may not. Those using the train to go to a hub airport like Heathrow may well be able to specify their outbound train, but would be unwise to specify the return one for fear of the plane being delayed or cancelled. Visiting friends and relatives might not be just a jolly to go to see Auntie Flo in Bognor for her 85th birthday; it might be going to see a terminally ill friend or relative and you might not be coming back until the inevitable happens. So there is discretionary travel and discretionary travel, and therefore something of a flaw in the reasoning.

“Virgin Trains’ West Coast franchise does, of course, have some customers who use us to commute to work, but they are a small minority; fewer than 10% of our journeys are currently made by season ticket holders”

Once again presumably Virgin has the data to back this up but I would still like to see some more detail. For example, it is currently only Virgin West Coast that provides a service between Wigan, Warrington and Crewe, or between Crewe, Warrington and Preston. If there is commuter traffic between those locations (and I’ be surprised if there wasn’t), Virgin provide the only current rail service.

“There are also significant problems with congestion and ticket complexity. Train companies are often obliged, by regulation, to accept ‘walk-up’ fares which means they have no control over the number of people getting on a particular train (unless it is physically unsafe). These walk-up fares are regulated by the Department for Transport (DfT) at a set price that cannot be varied by train; inevitably they are too cheap for some services and too expensive for others. This results in the all-too-frequent sight of customers forced to stand on a long-distance journey. Yet, on the same day, rigid timetables force companies to shuttle around extremely heavy and mostly empty trains, pushing up costs and ticket prices

Removing little-used trains would also improve overall network performance or could free up paths for more freight trains with corresponding benefits to our road network.”


There appears to be a large element of skewed thinking in these paragraphs. We are talking “walk-up” fares here, which essentially means anytime or off peak tickets. Then later on we are told that “inevitably they are too cheap for some services and too expensive for others.” I would like to see the evidence that they base this statement on - especially the "too cheap" bit. Then we are told that this results in customers being forced to stand on a long distance journey – or sit in a vestibule on the floor like Jeremy Corbyn perhaps… I have certainly been on trains that appear to be rammed to the gunwales only to hear the Train Manager plead with passengers to move down the train where there are plenty of empty seats. Sometimes the passengers themselves won’t even bother to look for a seat. Then there is the suggestion that the TOCs are running virtual ECS around the network to only fulfil their contractual obligations, but chooses perhaps not to mention that a single train cannot be taken in isolation because it is part of a longer diagram and, for example, a half-empty train going up to the Capital mid-afternoon will certainly not be half empty on its return working.

Finally on this particular quotation, the remark about TOCs having no control over the number of passengers on a train unless it is physically unsafe needs amplification. Bus companies have the same situation and so do ferries. They seem to suggest that the problem is one for the railway alone. I know that I personally would far prefer standing on a train than on a moving bus.

“Customers are often bewildered by the range of ticketing and fare options available and have little confidence that they have purchased the right ticket for their journey. There are too many options, with too many variables and unclear language.

The second, vital, step to import the airline model into the long-distance sector is to have reservation-only trains. This already exists on some international services such as Eurostar. Customers would book a ticket and a seat for a particular train. The price would be based on demand so as the train filled up, the price would go up. But there would only be one price for that train at a given point in time

Customers would be free to choose a popular train at a higher price, or a less popular train at a lower price. There would be no peak or off-peak, which would also eliminate much of the need for complex ‘split-ticketing’ arrangements by customers seeking to minimise their bills.
It would eliminate ticket complexity at a stroke.

Just like airlines, customers could buy a flexible ticket which would allow them to change trains and make a reservation for a different service if there was space. Anyone with a season ticket would need to book a seat, and customers with ‘open’, fully-flexible tickets would also have to book a seat rather than simply turning up at the last minute for any train.
These flexible ticket holders could of course change their reservation to another train (assuming seats were available) but could only hold one reservation at a time for a given day and journey”


Hmm… So prices would be higher for “popular” trains than for “unpopular” ones, and customers could buy a flexible ticket (presumably for a higher price as that is how the airlines do it), Fantastic idea – we could call them Anytime, off peak, super off peak and advance tickets – I wonder why no-one has ever thought of it before…?

“…everyone understands what’s involved in flying. It’s almost impossible for customers to get on the wrong plane, and everyone accepts that they are booked on a particular flight with a particular seat – and if they miss it, they either don’t travel or have to rebook at their own cost.”

As I mentioned in my post yesterday, this ain't necessarily so. In the aviation industry if a flight operator is responsible for a delay which makes a passenger miss their flight, they are responsible to rebook that customer. This is especially pertinent in the railway industry given that many people will use trains operated by multiple operators over one journey.

“…if a long-distance operator served a commuter market as part of its route, these commuters would still be required to reserve seats if they wanted to use this long-distance service rather than local commuter services”

I’d like a seat reservation for my 9-minute journey from Wigan to Warrington please…

I could go on but this post has now exceeded 1300 words so, if you are still reading, thank you!”  ;D


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eightonedee on April 25, 2019, 22:06:46
Thanks Robin - I'll put my hatchet back in the drawer....


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 29, 2019, 11:40:05
A piece on the future of franchising - an opinion piece from Jim Armitage in The Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/business/jim-armitage-must-do-better-after-end-of-the-line-for-rail-franchise-farce-a4129036.html).

Quote
Britain’s train franchising system is about to be shunted into the scrapyard, and not before time.

Under the dysfunctional Department of Transport, mandarins are making such extreme demands on companies running rail franchises that British firms have been all but pushed out of the market. Only foreign state-owned companies can afford the risk.

National Express quit UK rail in 2017, and Stagecoach has just ....

[snip]

One executive today said “anything is better than the status quo”.

Maybe, but surely we can reach higher than that.

An excellent read ... I was tempted to quote the whole thing in fact ... which may well help / open further discussion


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: PhilWakely on April 30, 2019, 08:16:23
From the BBC 30th April 2019 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48096549)
Quote
Rail firms want independent body to oversee network

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/12339/production/_106635547_gettyimages-1025512990.jpg)

An independent body should oversee the rail network, according to Britain's railway companies.

In submissions made to a government-appointed review into rail, the firms also said long-distance routes should be serviced by more than one company.

The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) added that control of commuter routes could be handed over to local authorities.

It suggested commuter routes could be organised in a similar way to Transport for London in the capital.

Local government oversees timetables and organisation in London, with private operators subcontracted to provide the services.

"We are suggesting replacing the current franchise system as it stands at the moment," RDG regional director Robert Nisbet told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"These proposals would result in a much more joined-up railway and greater accountability to passengers.

"We believe that would be best done by a system of dynamic contracts around the country.

"There would be an overarching apolitical body that would be in charge of this system, dealing with the trade-offs, but also policing it and issuing rules that bind and fines that bite.

"We are putting forward what we think is a compelling vision for both the public and private sectors working together in partnership, underpinned by an easier fare system which would deliver the best fare for any passenger whenever they took their journey."

The Strategic Rail Authority, which was established in 2000, used to carry out this role, but it was abolished in 2004.

Henri Murison, director of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said: "In the major northern cities, and across the Northern Powerhouse, this devolution would make it possible to integrate transport better.

"This is already being worked towards, with more touch-in-and-out travel within - and in between - our towns and cities in the North.

"This would be used by more of us as passengers if the government supports the fare system being reformed more quickly."

Currently, most UK rail services are operated by fixed-term franchises, which involve the Department for Transport (DfT) setting out a specification covering areas such as service levels, upgrades and performance.

Train companies then submit bids to run the franchise and the DfT selects one of the applicants.

Rail, Maritime and Transport union general secretary Mick Cash said the RDG was proposing a "deregulated free-for-all" that would lead to fare rises for customers.

The RDG's vision is likely to be seen as an attempt to stave off nationalisation, as proposed by Labour.

But the government has said privatisation has helped "transform" the industry.

The UK's rail network has been beset by problems, with the East Coast Mainline brought back under government control in May - for the third time in a decade.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16994/production/_106646529_trainpa.jpg)
Image copyright PA

Last year, hundreds of trains were cancelled amid a huge timetable reorganisation on services including Southern, Thameslink and Great Northern.

This month, Virgin and Stagecoach were barred from three rail franchise bids. The DfT disallowed the bids because they did not meet pensions rules.

Virgin was bidding to renew the West Coast franchise in partnership with Stagecoach and France's SNCF.

Stagecoach had also applied for the East Midlands and South Eastern franchises, both of which have been rejected.

Keith Williams, former chief executive of British Airways, is due to deliver a report on the future of the industry this autumn.

*** edited as the article was changed just as I posted! ***


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on April 30, 2019, 08:43:16
So effectively, is the RDG submission to the Williams Review is a hybrid of this (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=21246.0) and this? (https://www.virgintrains.co.uk/about/media-room#/pressreleases/virgin-trains-unveils-radical-proposals-to-reform-rail-by-importing-airline-model-2863276)


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: SandTEngineer on April 30, 2019, 11:51:10
Light Blue Touch paper.....
https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2019/469773861-2019-04-30.html

Quote
Rail companies 'call time on short-term fixes' with plan for 'generational system upgrade'

Written on 30 April 2019.

Following months of consultation with passengers, businesses and communities, the Rail Delivery Group has submitted proposals to the Williams Review that would create a generational step-change in accountability and customer focus.

Proposals would replace the current franchising system with TfL-style networks on some mass-commuter routes, more choice and competition for passengers on some long-distance routes, and services running on other routes with tough outcome-based targets and incentives to meet customer needs.

Accountability would be strengthened by putting a new independent national organising body in charge of the whole industry, acting as the glue that binds it together.
New system would be underpinned by the industry’s proposals to deliver an easier to use, better value fares system.

Plan to be taken round the country to consult about how the benefits of the proposals could be maximised.
Britain’s rail companies are proposing a radical alternative to the current franchising system that would better join up the railway, improve accountability for passengers and result in easier, better value fares for all.

The proposals to the government’s rail review, independently chaired by Keith Williams, are informed by conversations with passengers, businesses and communities across the country and set out the building blocks of a future system. They would see a new independent organising body put in charge of the industry, acting as the glue that binds it together so that everyone is working to meet the same customer-centric goals. Sitting outside day-to-day politics, the organising body would drive up accountability and standards, helping to end the blame game when things sometimes do go wrong and giving penalties where rail companies fall short.

With this new organising body in charge, the current one size fits all franchise system would be replaced with different types of services designed to suit the needs of different groups of passengers.

On some mass-commuter routes there would be democratically accountable, TfL-style single-branded concessions, where an integrated transport body is given more devolved control and rail companies are better integrated to deliver services for passengers.

On long-distance routes, where appropriate, multiple operators would compete for passengers’ business, making services far more responsive to their needs. Whether its quicker more comfortable journeys or faster Wi-Fi, demand would shape the market - with passengers able to vote with their feet if they wanted change.
On other routes, where passengers have less choice about how they travel there would be tough targets and incentives for train companies to deliver the outcomes their customers want, instead of today’s tightly specified inputs-based contracts. This would give operators the freedom to innovate to improve, while only being rewarded for good performance.

The new system would be underpinned by an easier to use, better value range of fares, delivered by updating decades old regulations. This could see pay-as-you-go with a price cap introduced on commuter services across the country, giving flexible workers a better deal. It would also enable greater local control over fares in devolved areas and better integration of rail fares with those for other modes of transport.

For long distance routes, updating fares regulations around peak and off-peak travel would mean ticket prices could be set more flexibly, incentivising more people to travel while spreading demand more evenly across the day - potentially reducing overcrowding by up to a third on the busiest services.

With a fully reformed fares system, for the first time passengers would able to benefit from a guarantee that they would pay the best fares for their journey, every time, with no need to split ticket.

Paul Plummer, Chief Executive of the Rail Delivery Group, which represents rail companies, said:
“These proposals call time on short term fixes and set out the once-in-a-generation system upgrade the railway needs if it is to help the country prosper over the next 25 years.

“We want to move forward with a rail system that is more focused on customers, more responsive to local communities and more accountable, letting rail companies deliver what people want in each area of the country and rebuilding trust between the industry and passengers.”

Over the summer, rail companies will continue consulting with passenger groups, business groups and local and regional bodies on how the benefits of the proposals could be maximised.

The proposals would also reinforce rail freight’s central role in delivering for Britain’s economy, highlighting the need to maintain a joined-up, national approach to coordinating the railway in order to ensure the access needed to keep supermarket shelves stacked, the lights on and the economy moving in the global marketplace.

To deliver these ambitious proposals and enable rail to meet the challenges of the next 25 years, a motivated, engaged and happy workforce is key, and the proposals highlight the need to invest in the rewards, skills and resources they need to secure long-term, rewarding careers for this generation and the next.

Josh Hardie, CBI Deputy Director-General said:
"Business wants an efficient and reliable rail system that delivers for the economy and that means reinvigorating the public private partnership that runs the railway.

“These proposals from the rail companies mark a necessary break from the status quo. They seek to drive innovation through private sector competition while improving accountability to passengers.

“It’s good to see an industry recognising the need for change and making serious proposals that could be part of the solution."


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ellendune on April 30, 2019, 22:50:08
The RDG's proposals look like a recipe for chaos to me. 

Where is this strong independent regulator to come from? All that will happen is a new figurehead is appointed and the same DfT civil servants will get moved across. And they are supposed to take whole load of different bids to run individual services and make so coherent pubic service out of it.  This is fantasy and high level - even by present day standards.

So the railways companies get a chance to run riot and make lots of money - just not pay it out in bonuses. 



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on May 02, 2019, 13:48:09
From Railnews (https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2019/05/02-branson-says-franchise-competitions-should.html):
Quote
Branson says franchise competitions should be cancelled

VIRGIN founder Sir Richard Branson has called for all outstanding Department for Transport franchise competitions to be scrapped until the recommendations of the Williams Rail Review have been published in the autumn. He has also claimed that four current franchises are ’struggling’...

This goes on at length, and includes this paragraph:
Quote
It is something of an open secret in the industry that four other current franchises are now also struggling. And that’s before the £750 million risk of split-ticketing and potential £7.5 billion of pensions risk are applied across the industry. There is also the risk of new open access operators taking significant revenue from franchises. The inescapable conclusion is the government is setting franchisees up to fail.

So what's this "£750 million risk of split-ticketing" then?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 02, 2019, 15:42:38
So what's this "£750 million risk of split-ticketing" then?

Someone's back to putting the cart before the horse again.    It's absurd that separate tickets on the 07:53 from A to B and then on the 09:30 B to C (a continuation of the same train) work out cheaper than buying a ticket all the way from A to C via (and calling at) B on the same train.

Fares should not be distorted as they are ... once the distortions are sorted out, split ticketing becomes the just-occasionally useful facility it was supposed to be in the first place - a convenient way of commuting from B (home) to A (office) in the morning, but then returning via B to C (rail user group meeting) in the evening without having to get off and rebook at B.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on May 02, 2019, 16:04:24
So what's this "£750 million risk of split-ticketing" then?

Someone's back to putting the cart before the horse again.    It's absurd that separate tickets on the 07:53 from A to B and then on the 09:30 B to C (a continuation of the same train) work out cheaper than buying a ticket all the way from A to C via (and calling at) B on the same train.

Fares should not be distorted as they are ... once the distortions are sorted out, split ticketing becomes the just-occasionally useful facility it was supposed to be in the first place - a convenient way of commuting from B (home) to A (office) in the morning, but then returning via B to C (rail user group meeting) in the evening without having to get off and rebook at B.

Yes, but Branson is talking about some new development that will cost the (presumably) TOCs £750M extra in lost revenue. Is that his view of the RDG fares proposal? If not, what is it?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Robin Summerhill on May 02, 2019, 17:02:37
So what's this "£750 million risk of split-ticketing" then?

Someone's back to putting the cart before the horse again.    It's absurd that separate tickets on the 07:53 from A to B and then on the 09:30 B to C (a continuation of the same train) work out cheaper than buying a ticket all the way from A to C via (and calling at) B on the same train.

Fares should not be distorted as they are ... once the distortions are sorted out, split ticketing becomes the just-occasionally useful facility it was supposed to be in the first place - a convenient way of commuting from B (home) to A (office) in the morning, but then returning via B to C (rail user group meeting) in the evening without having to get off and rebook at B.

Two things should be borne in mind; 1 the savvy traveller will always find the best deal and 2 there have been idiosyncrasies in ticket prices since I was a lad (if not since railways were invented). Let me give you a f’rinstance:

Back in my “trainspotting years” in the 60s, and in the days when ticket prices were still set by the mile, I had privilege rate travel because my father worked on the railway, whilst a friend who often came with me did not.

If, say, we wanted to go from Bristol to Manchester, I could by a child privilege return. He couldn’t buy a day return because in those days day returns were generally only available between selected locations, usually for local journeys, to popular seaside resorts or to London. And, as now, were only a few pence more than an ordinary single between those two points. As a day return wasn’t available for his full journey, he would have had to buy a full price child ordinary return from Bristol to Manchester which, at effectively 11/2d per mile, didn’t come cheap if all you had for income was pocket money and a Sunday paper round.

The system we used could not be done today because station dwell times were much longer back then.

He would buy a day return to Hereford and, on arrival, would scoot off to the booking office to buy a day return to Shrewsbury. The process was then repeated at Shrewsbury for a day return to Manchester.

Mid week returns were also available for a couple of years in the 60s. These allowed outbound travel on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, allowing return travel TWThO in the following week. Initially designed to attract the holiday market, it wasn’t only the pair of us who spotted that they allowed cheap long distance travel if you went two weeks’ running, as when you got to the other end you simply bought another mid-week return to go back the same week, then use the return portions of both tickets in the following week. Useful in the school holidays for Carlisle or Scotland runs, they were… :)

The moral of the story is that discounted fares then, as now, were designed to encourage discretionary leisure travel. Anything that the railways to potentially depress that demand may well result in a fall in passenger numbers.

So do away with split ticketing if you think that’s the best thing to do, but be careful how you do it.

I would finally draw an analogy with the accountancy profession. Every time the Chancellor or HMRC identify a “tax loophole” and closes it, any accountants worth their salt will find new ones. And in my view that is exactly what is likely to happen with railway fares after any review.

As the old saying goes: “Be careful what you wish for”






Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 08, 2019, 11:16:44
From Rail News (https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2019/05/08-rdg-fighting-like-rats-in.html)

Quote
THE Rail Delivery Group is reported to be divided over what the Williams Review should do to restructure the industry, with one union leader claiming that its members are ‘like rats fighting in a sack’.

Article goes on to describe some of the differences.

I have an uneasy feeling that the desired outcome ...
* for passengers is an excellent public transport network
* for train operator companies is a good business prospect
* for the Government is good news which costs them as little as possible
... may head in the same direction but are not totally compatible.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: jamestheredengine on May 08, 2019, 15:33:35
It's absurd that separate tickets on the 07:53 from A to B and then on the 09:30 B to C (a continuation of the same train) work out cheaper than buying a ticket all the way from A to C via (and calling at) B on the same train.

Mathematically the way to achieve this is a flat peak surcharge irrespective of distance.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on June 02, 2019, 05:49:18

This goes on at length, and includes this paragraph:
Quote
It is something of an open secret in the industry that four other current franchises are now also struggling. And that’s before the £750 million risk of split-ticketing and potential £7.5 billion of pensions risk are applied across the industry. There is also the risk of new open access operators taking significant revenue from franchises. The inescapable conclusion is the government is setting franchisees up to fail.

So what's this "£750 million risk of split-ticketing" then?

Somewhat ironic that Virgin have now launched their split ticketing app, with the weight of their marketing behind it, isn't it, then?  Perhaps we're in for something more like a public railway operated by private concessions with the risk taken by the public, and back to some sort of profit and loss limiter such as we saw under 'cap and collar'.  But then is the DfT the right body to manage such a system?  Echos of "SRA" which - however, was neither strategic nor with any authority and was rapidly taken back in-house. Might be difficult for those who currently make any decisions to let others make them if that's what Williams comes up with, and we could end up back in a world where the frustrations of getting a DfT decision at present are dwarfed by the problems of getting development approved by a rail specifying body which also needs to have all its decisions still ratified by the DfT.

At least we're currently seeing replacement of older trains with new ones and major infrastructure works on GWR, even if some of us feel that some of the changes are so biased towards the trunk and main limbs that they're being made at the expense of the smaller branches.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wwge_20190601_00.jpg)


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on July 16, 2019, 06:17:43
Wiliams Interview for BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

Quote
Government should not manage railways

Quote
The man tasked with working out how to improve UK railways says a "Fat Controller" type figure, independent from government, should be in charge of day-to-day operations.

The former boss of British Airways, Keith Williams, said government involvement should be limited to overall policy and budget decisions.

But he said the Department for Transport should not manage the system.

His review of the rail system will be published this autumn.

The Fat Controller is a fictional character who manages the railways in Thomas the Tank Engine, the children's television series based on the The Railway Series books.

Mr Williams said he also believed that, in the future, rail franchises should be underpinned by punctuality and other performance-related targets.

Quote
In a BBC interview Mr Williams insisted the interests of passengers would shape every aspect of his work and that the creation of an individual or organisation with oversight of the entire rail system would be "key for regaining public trust."

"Someone needs to be accountable to the public," he said.

He is still to decide on what relationship the individual or organisation would have with government but he said Network Rail, the public company managing rail infrastructure, should not take on an overall managerial role.
The idea has echoes of the Strategic Rail Authority, a body which, from 2001 to 2006, provided "strategic direction" for the industry.

Mr Williams had already said that the current rail franchising model was finished, but he has now indicated that a franchise should last longer than the current average of seven to eight years.

Quote
He argues that if train companies were in charge of networks for more time they would have more incentive to invest.

As things stand, under a franchise agreement, a train company will make a series of commitments to the government which have to be delivered.

According to Mr Williams, a franchise should no longer be about "how many ticketing offices there are in a station".

His team is looking into how franchises could focus instead on performance targets such as punctuality and whether or not services have the correct number of carriages - something which continues to be a problem for passengers in the north of England.

The rail review also looks set to recommend an overhaul of the complicated rail ticketing system, which has not been reformed since the mid-90s.

"Pay-as-you-go across regions and cities has been difficult to implement because of the fares system that exists today," said Mr Williams.

He said a national system should be created to allow more third-party companies like thetrainline.com to improve the way people buy tickets.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on July 16, 2019, 07:05:03

Quote
The man tasked with working out how to improve UK railways says a "Fat Controller" type figure, independent from government, should be in charge of day-to-day operations.

Is that an (major) extension of the ORR's role ... Stephen Glaister or Declan Collier
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16558.msg244559#msg244559

So - who would YOU choose as a "Fat Controller" ??


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on July 16, 2019, 11:04:32
Wiliams Interview for BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511



The BBC have updated and added to the article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

added the following:

Quote
Mick Cash, general secretary of rail union RMT, said it had warned that "Keith Williams had been hand-picked by Chris Grayling and the Tories to try and get them off the hook over the privatised chaos on our railways".

He added: "RMT also warned that Keith Williams would side 100% with his big-business mates and duck the issue of public ownership of the railways - the option supported by over two-thirds of the British people.

"He has and after months of deliberation has come up with the classic cop-out of another unaccountable quango."


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: jamestheredengine on July 16, 2019, 11:52:18

Quote
The man tasked with working out how to improve UK railways says a "Fat Controller" type figure, independent from government, should be in charge of day-to-day operations.

Is that an (major) extension of the ORR's role ... Stephen Glaister or Declan Collier
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16558.msg244559#msg244559

So - who would YOU choose as a "Fat Controller" ??


It has to be Broadgage. He has the appropriate appreciation of what constitutes a really useful engine.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: johnneyw on July 16, 2019, 12:04:01

Quote
The man tasked with working out how to improve UK railways says a "Fat Controller" type figure, independent from government, should be in charge of day-to-day operations.

Is that an (major) extension of the ORR's role ... Stephen Glaister or Declan Collier
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16558.msg244559#msg244559

So - who would YOU choose as a "Fat Controller" ??


Clearly it will be someone with a large appetite.... for the job.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Celestial on July 17, 2019, 16:45:15
I'm not sure having a Fat Controller is a good idea. I seem to recall that railways with a FC have a very poor safety record, judging by the number of crashes they seem to have on Sodor. (Or maybe it just feels that way having watched each episode more often than a Broadgage complaint on IETs.)

Though maybe they could reuse one idea and run all the hated pacers when withdrawn into a tunnel and then brick it up. Chris Grayling could even drive them in. (You see where I'm going with that?) That would save having to come up with silly ideas as to what to do with them. 


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: SandTEngineer on August 12, 2019, 10:05:32
The rumour mill has started.  From the Sunday Times, 11th August 2019:

Quote
A review of the railways by the former boss of British Airways has recommended a huge increase in Network Rail’s powers, putting it at the heart of a powerful new organisation.

Keith Williams’s review, which was commissioned by former transport secretary Chris Grayling, is understood to have proposed a new structure called the National Rail Body, which will own the tracks and oversee train services. Uniting track and train was Grayling’s central ambition for the railways.

The National Rail Body will encompass Network Rail, in effect increasing the powers of the state-owned behemoth that owns 20,000 miles of track and most big stations.

It will also swallow parts of the Department for Transport (DfT) responsible for commissioning rail franchises, and it is expected to include the Rail Safety and Standards Board.

The organisation will have about 40,000 staff and be split along Network Rail’s new structure of five regions, which will have greater local control of trains and tracks.

However, given Network Rail’s record of delayed and over-budget projects, such as the upgrade of the London to Swansea Great Western line, the decision will be controversial.

The National Rail Body is expected to take over commissioning train services, tearing up the existing structure of franchising where operators report to the DfT. New contracts are likely to see less risk passed to private operators, which are reeling from the collapse of the East Coast franchise and the struggles of Northern Rail and South Western Railway.

Williams, who recently took over as chairman of Royal Mail, said last month that the “current franchising model has had its day”.

The DfT will shortly name the operator of the West Coast mainline, which will eventually also encompass High Speed 2. A consortium of FirstGroup and Trenitalia is likely to win the contract. The DfT refused to comment.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on October 29, 2019, 07:37:01
From Rail News (https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2019/10/28-williams-lifts-the-veil-on.html)

Quote
KEITH Williams has confirmed that the creation of a new national railway body is to be recommended in his forthcoming Review, and that he is looking at removing the profit motive from passenger train operating contracts, which could become ‘passenger service contracts’ instead.

Giving evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee on Monday evening, he revealed that the new national body, or ‘guiding mind’, would be in charge of letting these contracts, with the Department for Transport only responsible in future for setting broad national railway strategy. He also said the new body would take revenue risk. but there was no such thing as a ‘one size fits all’ model for individual operating contracts.

He is in favour of the Transport for London model, and praised the large amount of innovation which TfL has achieved. He believes one of the new-style National Rail contracts could also include specific bonuses for innovation. He added: ‘TfL is still run like a network, so we need to take account of the national network as well. To some degree, TfL could form a model for the new guiding mind.’

He is also in favour of simplifying ticketing, which has been advocated by the Rail Delivery Group.

Although the terms of reference in his inquiry did not include a detailed scrutiny of industry costs, he commented: ‘The amount of fragmentation does increase the costs of rail. There are undoubtedly opportunities to take out costs. I used to run British Airways, and the amount of rail fragmentation is much greater then it was in BA.’ He continued: ‘We can simplify the way the railway works. There does need to be a strong regulator, ensuring delivery.’

He said it could take between five and ten years to bring all his recommendations into effect, and also admitted that he does not know what an early election would do to the timing of his Review, which is due to be published as a White Paper this autumn.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on April 22, 2021, 02:34:09
Quote
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for 18 months.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

From Rail News (https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2021/04/21-williams-rail-review-quietly-renamed.html)

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 16, 2021, 07:55:37
From City am (https://www.cityam.com/ministers-set-to-reveal-radical-rail-shake-up/) yesterday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article then sets context ...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
The Department for Transport (DfT) declined to comment

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 16, 2021, 09:00:08
Well, if true, then that means what I have been hearing is 50% true, in the DfT will only want a very arms-length relationship with the rail network in future, and 50% wishful thinking on the part of certain special advisors who appear to have been briefing on what they wanted to see - ie sectorisation with the business units leading and Network Rail following - and ending up with the opposite - ie sectorisation with Network Rail leading and the business units following.

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Electric train on May 16, 2021, 11:27:39
From City am (https://www.cityam.com/ministers-set-to-reveal-radical-rail-shake-up/) yesterday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article then sets context ...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
The Department for Transport (DfT) declined to comment

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

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

The privatisation option most favoured by BR in the 90's was very close to what is above quote


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 16, 2021, 12:06:16
aka formally known as British Rail  ;D  has a political party made a U-turn  ???

The privatisation option most favoured by BR in the 90's was very close to what is above quote

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eightonedee on May 16, 2021, 12:11:03
Forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure I understand what is being proposed apart from more reorganisation at the top level (someone will be stirring the alphabet soup of acronyms no doubt). Does it simply mean that the new concession holders will no longer lease the trains and those stations they mainly or exclusively run, but we will still be left with a system of time limited renewable operating agreements, a system that has to work out if delay was due to the track infrastructure provider or the train operator to attribute financial penalties, with the risk of (for example) trains missing intermediate stops so that they arrive "on time" for punctuality penalty purposes?  Any welcome change in ticketing flexibility does not require any fundamental change in the structure of how commercial risk is attributed in the industry, which is what I guess this is really all about .

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Electric train on May 16, 2021, 13:43:45
Forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure I understand what is being proposed apart from more reorganisation at the top level (someone will be stirring the alphabet soup of acronyms no doubt). Does it simply mean that the new concession holders will no longer lease the trains and those stations they mainly or exclusively run, but we will still be left with a system of time limited renewable operating agreements, a system that has to work out if delay was due to the track infrastructure provider or the train operator to attribute financial penalties, with the risk of (for example) trains missing intermediate stops so that they arrive "on time" for punctuality penalty purposes?  Any welcome change in ticketing flexibility does not require any fundamental change in the structure of how commercial risk is attributed in the industry, which is what I guess this is really all about .

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 16, 2021, 14:02:46
There is no perfect solution.  We just have to hope this is better that what went before, which was fairly universally panned.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 17, 2021, 05:06:51
From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/16/railway-braces-for-shake-up-and-cuts-as-overdue-review-arrives)

Quote
UK railways brace for shake-up and cuts as long-overdue review arrives

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 17, 2021, 05:34:11
From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/16/railway-braces-for-shake-up-and-cuts-as-overdue-review-arrives)

Quote
UK railways brace for shake-up and cuts as long-overdue review arrives

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Electric train on May 17, 2021, 06:42:48
Both Sir Peter Hendy and Andrew Haines have a track record of changing the way public sector transport operates.  The is a high risk of very disruptive industrial action by the Trades Unions due to the (quite well founded) leaked information form the Rail Recovery Group of up to 25% job cuts


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 17, 2021, 08:43:24
Both Sir Peter Hendy and Andrew Haines have a track record of changing the way public sector transport operates.  The is a high risk of very disruptive industrial action by the Trades Unions due to the (quite well founded) leaked information form the Rail Recovery Group of up to 25% job cuts

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Electric train on May 17, 2021, 11:21:27
Both Sir Peter Hendy and Andrew Haines have a track record of changing the way public sector transport operates.  The is a high risk of very disruptive industrial action by the Trades Unions due to the (quite well founded) leaked information form the Rail Recovery Group of up to 25% job cuts

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

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

Both have a record either in TfL or CAA of single maimedly pushing change through, this will cause friction whether the friction causes combustion time will tell

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 17, 2021, 13:49:52
The suggestion - in overall terms rather than me putting words into Electric train's mouth - is that the plan is for Network Rail leaders to wield the axe on large swathes of their own budget and workforce, rather than spreading at least some of that "pain" by taking the opportunity they will finally have of cutting out the kind of "unnecessary and in the way" stations and services that successive Network Rail Business Plans have shown a clear loathing and contempt for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting too, who you see rail's competitors as. I think it would be very unwise to get into a head to head rail vs bus battle at a time when buses are to receive significant new funding and rail is to face substantial funding cuts. Instead, I am working alongside grahame and others through initiatives such as Option 24/7 (http://option247.uk) to integrate rail, bus, active travel cycling and walking, and even to a certain extent car as well, as far as possible. That is exactly what we try and encourage over here in Brittany too. Quote from the Saint Brieuc - where part of my work is based - Urban Travel Plan:

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Electric train on May 17, 2021, 17:28:18


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

Interesting too, who you see rail's competitors as. I think it would be very unwise to get into a head to head rail vs bus battle at a time when buses are to receive significant new funding and rail is to face substantial funding cuts. Instead, I am working alongside grahame and others through initiatives such as Option 24/7 (http://option247.uk) to integrate rail, bus, active travel cycling and walking, and even to a certain extent car as well, as far as possible. That is exactly what we try and encourage over here in Brittany too. Quote from the Saint Brieuc - where part of my work is based - Urban Travel Plan:


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

It is more likely on the WCML where Avanti and London Midland compete and on certain parts of the East Cost Mainline.

It is overturning the Governments previous mantra of competition is king

[Edit - Fix quote - Red Squirrel]


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: trainbuff on May 17, 2021, 23:36:12
It is also possible that cross country will be pared back. Not operating into Cornwall or North of Edinburgh for instance could be seen as attractive. Maybe not even to Paignton at all. Will mean changing at Plymouth but is possible. And of course a reduction in catering staff or even Train Managers if less services to run


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eightonedee on May 18, 2021, 13:40:29
Quote
It is also possible that cross country will be pared back. Not operating into Cornwall or North of Edinburgh for instance could be seen as attractive. Maybe not even to Paignton at all. Will mean changing at Plymouth but is possible. And of course a reduction in catering staff or even Train Managers if less services to run

This is a cause for concern. If the railways are to be regionalised, with infrastructure and trains in single units based on routes out of London, does this mean that Cross Country (and some other routes that cross "regional" boundaries, like North Downs or Portsmouth to Cardiff) will become "orphaned", and peripheral to the new business units operations (and therefore become again the cinderellas of the system)? It will be a retrograde step if this occurs.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 19, 2021, 16:58:17
Confirmation of publication tomorrow ... 20th May 2021.   Source of this email not shared for obvious reasons.

Quote
You may well have seen in the press that the long awaited Williams Review is due to be published tomorrow. [name deleted] attended a briefing about this at the DfT today and received an embargoed press release.

I don't know what hour the embargo lasts until, but can assure you that the Coffee Shop will be open for conversations right through the night ...


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 19, 2021, 22:37:13
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/great-british-railways-body-announced-to-run-industry-but-what-about-scotland-3243330

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/great-british-railways-replaces-greater-anglia-norfolk-suffolk-7986892

Press Release ... from the Department for Transport, embargoed until 22:30 on 19th May 2021 but reads as if published just after midnight. Perhaps the press release tonight and the document it referenced in the morning?

Quote
* Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail to reform Britain’s railways and launch new era for passengers

* Biggest change in 25 years sees creation of new public body Great British Railways – a single, familiar brand with united, accountable leadership

* Simpler, modern fares delivered starting with new flexible season tickets on sale from 21 June, and a new Great British Railways website for all tickets and clearer compensation

* Reforms support delivery of financially sustainable railway as country recovers from Covid-19, with new contracts focused on punctuality and improved efficiency making it easier and cheaper to plan maintenance, renewal and upgrades

A quarter-century of fragmentation on the railways will end as they come under single, accountable national leadership, as the Government today (20 May 2021) unveils a new plan for rail which prioritises passengers and freight.

A new public body, Great British Railways, will integrate the railways, owning the infrastructure, collecting fare revenue, running and planning the network, and setting most fares and timetables. 

Great British Railways will simplify the current mass of confusing tickets with new flexible season tickets, and a significant roll-out of more convenient Pay As You Go, contactless and digital ticketing on smartphones. A new Great British Railways website will sell tickets and a single compensation system for operators in England will provide a simple system for passengers to access information and apply for refunds.

There will remain a substantial, and often greater role, for the private sector. Great British Railways will contract private partners to operate most trains to the timetables and fares it specifies, with a model similar to that used by Transport for London in its successful Overground and Docklands Light Railway services. 

The new Passenger Service Contracts will include strong incentives for operators to run high-quality services and increase passenger numbers. They will not be one-size-fits-all: as demand recovers, operators on some routes, particularly long-distance, will have more commercial freedom. Affordable walk-on fares and season ticket prices will be protected.

The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, published today, sets out the path towards a truly passenger-focused railway, underpinned by new contracts that prioritise punctual and reliable services, the rapid delivery of a ticketing revolution, with new flexible and convenient tickets, and long-term proposals to build a modern, greener and accessible network.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:

“I am a great believer in rail, but for too long passengers have not had the level of service they deserve.

 “By creating Great British Railways, and investing in the future of the network, this government will deliver a rail system the country can be proud of”. 

Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary, said:

“Our railways were born and built to serve this country, to forge stronger connections between our communities and provide people with an affordable, reliable and rapid service. Years of fragmentation, confusion and over-complication has seen that vision fade, and passengers failed. That complicated and broken system ends today.

“The pandemic has seen the Government take unprecedented steps to protect services and jobs. It’s now time to kickstart reforms that give the railways solid and stable foundations for the future, unleashing the competitive, innovative and expert abilities of the private sector, and ensuring passengers come first.

“Great British Railways marks a new era in the history of our railways. It will become a single familiar brand with a bold new vision for passengers – of punctual services, simpler tickets and a modern and green railway that meets the needs of the nation.”

Keith Williams, Chair of the Williams Review, said:

“Our Plan is built around the passenger, with new contracts which prioritise excellent performance and better services, better value fares, and creating clear leadership and real accountability when things go wrong.

“Our railway history - rich with Victorian pioneers and engineers, steam and coal, industry and ingenuity - demands a bright future. This plan is the path forward, reforming our railways to ensure they work for everyone in this country.”

Covid-19 has caused deep, structural challenges to the railway, with use still far below pre-pandemic levels. This strategy re-emphasises our commitment to growing, not shrinking, the rail network, with tens of billions of pounds invested in more electrification, new and reopened lines and a rail revolution. 

Great British Railways will drive significant efficiencies in the railways' inflated costs, reducing complexity and duplication, increasing flexibility, changing working practices and making it easier and cheaper to invest. Reform is the only way to protect services and jobs in the long term. 

In the short and medium term, we will work closely with the sector on measures to encourage passengers back to rail. To reflect changes in the traditional commute and working life, the Government has today announced that a new national flexi season ticket will be on sale this summer, with potential savings of hundreds of pounds a year for 2 and 3 day-a-week commuters. Tickets will be on sale on 21 June, ready for use on 28 June. 

The new Passenger Service Contracts will also help to build a more financially stable industry. By removing barriers to new market entrants, including by no longer basing competitions on complex and uncertain revenue forecasts, private operators will be challenged to provide a competitive and customer-focused offer, delivering greater value-for-money for the taxpayer. 

Local communities will work closely with GBR on designing services, with local leaders given greater control over local ticketing, timetables and stations. The new model will encourage innovative bidders, such as community rail partnerships who want to bid for the GBR contract to operate their local branch lines. 

The journey to this new passenger-focused model has begun today. New National Rail Contracts will be announced this year. These contracts will be in operation for two years and act as a bridge to reform.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 19, 2021, 22:40:37
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19314883.train-travel-shake-up-network-rail-jettisoned---new-gb-body-powers-scotland-limited/

https://news.sky.com/story/franchises-scrapped-and-changes-to-season-tickets-among-major-changes-to-british-rail-network-12311161

and I'm sure there will be lots more ....



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 19, 2021, 22:46:50
Reaction from the Community Rail Network:

Quote
A national organisation that represents more than 1,000 local voluntary groups and 74 ‘community rail partnerships’ – working locally to engage communities with their railways – has warmly welcomed government plans to reinvigorate rail.
 
The Department for Transport’s publication today (20 May 2021) of the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail signals the beginning of rail reform, including commitments to:
* Replace franchising with a new structure, new overarching public body and new contractual arrangements, aiming for greater reliability, coherence and accountability, and always putting passengers and communities at the forefront
* Put our railways at the heart of a clean, green transport system
* Ensure our railways are inclusive, accessible, and responsive to local community needs and views
* Bring in simpler and more flexible ticketing
* Continue to invest in and develop our railways, recognising their importance to local communities and creating a more sustainable transport future.
It is expected that the community rail movement will play a crucial role in supporting delivery of these plans and advising rail partners and government on local needs and opportunities for rail development.
 
Jools Townsend, chief executive of Community Rail Network, said: “We warmly welcome the commitments set out by the government for reforming and reinvigorating our railways – aiming to make these vital sustainable transport arteries even more productive and valuable to the communities they serve. We’ll be working hard to help communities engage with and feed into this process of change, ensuring local voices are heard and needs understood.
 
“Community rail is a thriving grassroots movement spanning Great Britain, working with the rail industry to deliver positive local impact. Our members are dedicated to engaging communities with their railways and stations, and enabling everyone to access and benefit from the sustainable mobility that rail offers. Through this work, it’s plain to see how important our railways are to community life – but they have an even greater role to play going forward, as we look to rebuild from the pandemic, and shift onto greener forms of transport. The community rail movement looks forward to working with local authorities, rail and transport partners, and the wider community sector, to ensure rail is firmly at the heart of a sustainable and inclusive transport future, which everyone can benefit from.”


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: old original on May 19, 2021, 22:50:32
..to take over from Network Rail and control of all aspects of the railways include fares & timetabling

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 19, 2021, 23:00:45
..to take over from Network Rail and control of all aspects of the railways include fares & timetabling

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858


Full press release at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20846.msg306304#msg306304


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: JayMac on May 20, 2021, 05:35:11
And lo, it came to pass.

I have consistently said on this forum that if we can't have a fully nationalised rail service then the next best option is the concession model.

I do hope that Great British Railway (GBR) will have some autonomy from Whitehall and won't be micromanaged by the DfT.

What will be interesting to watch is the reaction of the current operators' parent companies. Will they all still be keen to be involved in running services? Will this actually see new entrants bidding for concessions?

Lots to look forward too. Not least some sort of national livery!


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 05:44:57
Press release from DfT (Quoted above) is at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/great-british-railways-for-the-passenger and in our searchable mirror ((here)) (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/mirror/Great_British_Railways-GOV_UK-press.pdf)

Included in there ...
Quote
The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, published today, sets out the path towards a truly passenger-focused railway, underpinned by new contracts that prioritise punctual and reliable services, the rapid delivery of a ticketing revolution, with new flexible and convenient tickets and long-term proposals to build a modern, greener and accessible network.
but (as yet) no link I have found to that main publication.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 06:04:52
I do hope that GBR will have some autonomy from Whitehall and won't be micromanaged by the DfT.
Indeed - but there's also the massive question of their strategies and approaches

Quote
What will be interesting to watch is the reaction of the current operators' parent companies. Will they all still be keen to be involved in running services? Will this actually see new entrants bidding for concessions?
The Press Release says
Quote
Local communities will work closely with GBR on designing services, with local leaders given greater control over local ticketing, timetables and stations. The new model will encourage innovative bidders, such as community rail partnerships who want to bid for the GBR contract to operate their local branch lines.
I'm noting "such as" within the text I have bolded - also seeing a potential option for Open Access operators to run services, with the difference being that they might bid for and run GBR specified services as a whole rather than [just?] filling in the gaps left by the service specifiers.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 06:11:22
From Railfuture Media (to me via email)

Quote
The end of rail franchising – will the passenger notice any improvement?

Rail campaigners have given a cautious welcome to the long awaited Williams review, which will confirm the end of rail franchising.

“It seems that the government wants to make rail work to improve the passenger experience and support economic growth.” said Chris Page, chair of the campaign group Railfuture, “But the devil of course will be in the detail, and we have to wait for the White Paper for that. We will be looking for flexibility and responsiveness, a can-do attitude and whether the new structure will create a joined-up railway which works.

“There are many important questions that remain unanswered.

When will passengers notice a difference?

How will we get people back on the trains? – We need action now, and rail managers should be focused on that, not on whether they have a job in the new structure.

When will we see an end to inflation-busting fare rises? They need to be linked to CPI not RPI

Will fares be repriced to deliver value for money and remove the anomalies which lead to split-ticketing whilst retaining the flexibility of choice, including walk-up travel?

Will weekend closures be avoided during the summer when many people will be taking staycations?

Until we get the answers to these questions,  we can’t tell whether the reality matches the rhetoric.”


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 06:18:00
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/network-rail-responds-to-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail

Quote
Network Rail responds to Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail

Region & Route: National
Commenting on the publication of the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, Andrew Haines, Network Rail chief executive, said: “Passengers deserve a reliable, affordable and sustainable railway, focussed on them. Today’s announcement will help us deliver that by simplifying the railway, paving the way to dismantle the legacy of complexity and fragmentation. Passengers and freight users will once more be put front and centre of a service designed and run for their needs.

“These changes will take time, but I am determined to get to work quickly with the industry and government. The pandemic has created significant challenges for the industry, and that means the changes we have to make are even more urgent. We must attract passengers back, deliver efficiencies and improve the service we provide. Today marks the start of an exciting new chapter for our railway, a chapter that puts the passenger first.”


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TaplowGreen on May 20, 2021, 06:58:42
As a customer, how will I notice the difference?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 07:04:29
As a customer, how will I notice the difference?

As yet, largely guesswork?  Depends on what the new setup does and how it does it.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TaplowGreen on May 20, 2021, 07:37:36
As a customer, how will I notice the difference?

As yet, largely guesswork?  Depends on what the new setup does and how it does it.

"Until we get the answers to these questions,  we can’t tell whether the reality matches the rhetoric.”


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 07:42:38
From https://news.railbusinessdaily.com/williams-shapps-plan-ten-outcomes-laid-out-in-the-white-paper/ - I am quoting the headlines only; there's an explanatory sentence in the article with each of them.

Quote
The ten outcomes laid out in the White Paper are:
1. Modern passenger experience 
2. Retail revolution
3. New ways of working with the private sector
4. Economic recovery and financially sustainable railways
5. Greater control for local people and places 
6. Cleaner, greener railways
7. New opportunities for freight
8. Increased speed of delivery and efficient enhancements
9. Skilled, innovative workforce
10. Simpler industry structure


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 20, 2021, 08:21:30
I do hope that GBR will have some autonomy from Whitehall and won't be micromanaged by the DfT.
Indeed - but there's also the massive question of their strategies and approaches

Quote
What will be interesting to watch is the reaction of the current operators' parent companies. Will they all still be keen to be involved in running services? Will this actually see new entrants bidding for concessions?
The Press Release says
Quote
Local communities will work closely with GBR on designing services, with local leaders given greater control over local ticketing, timetables and stations. The new model will encourage innovative bidders, such as community rail partnerships who want to bid for the GBR contract to operate their local branch lines.
I'm noting "such as" within the text I have bolded - also seeing a potential option for Open Access operators to run services, with the difference being that they might bid for and run GBR specified services as a whole rather than [just?] filling in the gaps left by the service specifiers.

Also raises the questions of "what is a branch line service, and how should such services be run and developed?"

EXAMPLE 1 - The Devon & Cornwall branch lines might well be run superbly by a standalone organisation led by someone like RichardB, but equally, they may be also be better off as part of a county led and specified Devon Metro or One Cornwall that fully integrates them with modes such as bus and active travel.

EXAMPLE 2 - The TransWilts could well be seen by those in charge of Great British Railways as a  branch line-style type of local service, and is specified and often described by the rail industry as such, who may also see the technical knowhow and track record of, and effective partnerships with local figures like grahame as perfect for a self-contained micro-contract. However, if this then sets "Westbury-Swindon and no further" in aspic, how will wider ambitions of extensions to eg Southampton or Oxford/Birmingham be realised?

Also, how does one ensure that such locally-run services are truly locally accountable? For example, some CRPs such as Devon & Cornwall and Severnside on our patch are brilliant at involving local communities in all aspects of their activities and overall strategy, while others tend to take the view that such decisions largely begin and end at board level.

What if an organisation such as Go-op talks a good game and gets contracts as a result, but is ultimately not up to it and/or advances a service vision that isnt really what "locals" want?

And if the Network Rail-arm of Great British Railways can ultimately put the "stability of the overall network" first and use its powers to "change timetables and even out services", will there be any point to any of it?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 08:23:36
As a customer, how will I notice the difference?

Are you a graphic designer?  ...
Quote
Great British Railways will introduce Rail Alphabet 2 across the rail network, replacing the many different fonts used on railway signage


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 08:27:27
Full report

White paper (6 Mb, 116 pages) via https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-british-railways-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987752/gbr-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail.pdf

Edit to add ... member mirror at http://www.passenger.chat/gbr-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail.pdf and text therein included in our searches.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 08:35:14
From the DfT Rail Reform Briefing Hub (via email) - what's being said to partners ...

Quote
Dear Colleague,

As you will be aware, the government is committed to bringing forward vital sector-wide reforms and commissioned Keith Williams to carry out the first root and branch review of the rail industry in a generation.  The contributions you and others made to the Call for Evidence, helped to provide the picture of where change is needed and why.  Thank you for engaging with the process to date.

The Secretary of State has been clear, that his ambition is to get trains running on time, have a railway that works in the interests of passengers and freight customers – and to create a more financially sustainable railway, saving money for the taxpayer.

Today, the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail is published, and details the plans for rail reform can be found here see links in this thread.

The Plan sets out the Governments promise to passengers and freight customers:
 
* To end three decades of fragmentation by bringing the railways back together under a new public body. Great British Railways will be a single, familiar brand with accountable leadership, and a new identity, built on the famous double arrow. Great British Railways (GBR) will run and plan the network, own the infrastructure, and collect most fare revenue. It will procure passenger services and set most fares and timetables.
 
* To make the railways easier to use by simplifying fares and ticketing, providing more convenient ways to pay with contactless, smartphone and online, and protecting affordable walk-on fares and season tickets. Rail services will be better coordinated with each other, and better integrated with other transport services such as trams, buses and bikes.
 
* To keep the best elements of the private sector that have helped to drive growth. GBR will contract private partners to operate the trains to the timetable it sets. These contracts will include strong incentives for operators to run high-quality services and increase passenger demand. The contracts are not one-size-fits-all, so as demand recovers long-distance routes will have more commercial freedom to attract new passengers. Freight is already a nimble, largely private sector market and will remain so, while benefitting from the national coordination, new safeguards, and rules-based access system that will help it thrive.
 
* To grow, not shrink, the network, continuing to invest tens of billions of pounds in new lines, trains, services and electrification.
 
* To make the railways more efficient. Simpler structures and clear leadership will make decision making easier and more transparent, reduce costs and make it cheaper to invest in modern ways to pay, upgrade the network and deliver new lines. The adversarial blame culture will end, and everyone across the sector, including train operators, will be incentivised to work towards common goals, not least managing costs.

The Department will continue to engage with stakeholders  - including through further public consultations – as we implement the transformation programme set out in the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail.

Kind regards


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: rower40 on May 20, 2021, 09:20:11
(Great) British Rail(ways) needs a world-renowned Research division, based somewhere central - say, the East Midlands - to spearhead the technological challenges of the decades ahead.
This might, erm... RESONATE ... with certain developments in the 1960s.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ellendune on May 20, 2021, 09:50:57
(Great) British Rail(ways) needs a world-renowned Research division, based somewhere central - say, the East Midlands - to spearhead the technological challenges of the decades ahead.
This might, erm... RESONATE ... with certain developments in the 1960s.

You mean somewhere like London Road in Derby.  Wasn't there one a place there that did that.  I seem to remember working there for a short time in the 1970's. 


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: jamestheredengine on May 20, 2021, 11:44:15
The best bit:
Quote
Great British Railways will introduce new design and ride standards that will make sure all new trains are more comfortable than their predecessors. Subject to negotiations with suppliers and business case approval, Great British Railways will bring forward the normal replacement cycles on existing trains equipped with "ironing-board"-like seats, beginning with long-distance trains, in order to make the seats signifcantly more comfortable, or to replace and eventually remove them altogether.
Can we have buffet cars and drop-sash windows you have to lean out of to open the doors back as well, please?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: rower40 on May 20, 2021, 12:05:11

Can we have buffet cars and drop-sash windows you have to lean out of to open the doors back as well, please?

Sorry for off-topic...

The rot set in with the removal of the internal door-handles on Mk3 coaches. (Does anyone else remember the "Tamworth Triangle" falls-from-trains tragedies?)  On a crush-loaded Mk3, these door handles would look invitingly like a perch-seat, with awful consequences if the hinge of that door was nearer the rear of the train.

When these coaches were retro-fitted with Central Locking, it was a travesty that the door-handles weren't then re-installed, as it would have saved having to open the windows at each station where anyone was leaving the train.

+1 for Buffet cars!


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: JayMac on May 20, 2021, 14:21:47
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57184564

Quote
Shares in online rail and bus ticket firm Trainline have plunged after news that a new state-owned body is to sell rail tickets.



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 20, 2021, 14:27:32
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57184564

Quote
Shares in online rail and bus ticket firm Trainline have plunged after news that a new state-owned body is to sell rail tickets.

Under a shake-up of the rail sector, Great British Railways will sell tickets via a website and app, in competition with multiple companies.





Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 20, 2021, 15:07:34
As a customer, how will I notice the difference?

I doubt that you will notice any difference for say the rest of this calendar year. We will still have the same trains, the same staff, and the same infrastructure.

In the longer term I expect that changes will be fairly gradual, but hopefully we will see some improvements.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 20, 2021, 15:20:19
I suspect that a significant minority of TOC staff are fearful about their futures.
Not OPERATIONAL staff, drivers, train managers, ticket inspectors and the like will still be needed and in broadly similar numbers.

With a new "national identity" many TOC publicity and design staff may no longer be needed. Some of course will find work with the new national organisation, but we wont need the present number of
Livery designers.
Staff uniform designers.
Poster designers.
And related jobs.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2021, 16:30:44
Also no TOC timetable staff & no staff required to determine cause and attribution of every delay. No fares staff either. Slimmed down TOCs will result in cost reduction and potentially cheaper contracts to run trains.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 20, 2021, 16:41:57
Also no TOC timetable staff & no staff required to determine cause and attribution of every delay. No fares staff either. Slimmed down TOCs will result in cost reduction and potentially cheaper contracts to run trains.

Timetable planning is labour intensive and might still need nearly as many staff as today, but employed byGreat British Railway (GBR) rather than by each TOC.
The savings in staff involved in delay attribution will be welcomed except by those put out of work.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2021, 16:45:54
MR already have floors of timetable staff that check & approve TOC bids and re-bids. I doubt they’ll need (m)any additional heads


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Zoe on May 20, 2021, 16:51:25
Also no TOC timetable staff & no staff required to determine cause and attribution of every delay. No fares staff either. Slimmed down TOCs will result in cost reduction and potentially cheaper contracts to run trains.
It does say though that as numbers recover, long distance operators will have more autonomy and commercial freedom (page 31).  It expands on this on page 58 by saying:
Quote
As passenger numbers recover, contracts will be fexible and include the possibility for operators to act more commercially on some services, when this is the most value for money option and it is fnancially sustainable for the operator to take on these responsibilities. As that happens, operators on those routes, predominantly the long-distance ones, will be able to make more decisions including setting more of their own fares and taking more revenue risk – though affordable 'turn up and go' fares and seasons will be protected,


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 20, 2021, 16:53:08
MR already have floors of timetable staff that check & approve TOC bids and re-bids. I doubt they’ll need (m)any additional heads

Good point. Whom is "MR" ? Typo for NR ?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2021, 16:54:38
Indeed, but what happens to those staff before that ability kicks in?

Yes, typo for NR. Sorry, on iphone keyboard


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Marlburian on May 20, 2021, 18:09:30
Passengers optimistic while unions concerned over Government railway shake-up (https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-05-20/passengers-optimistic-while-unions-concerned-over-government-railway-shake-up)

The words "strikes" and "conflict" feature.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 20, 2021, 18:18:54
Would that be the same unions that have regularly called for public ownership of the railways ?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 20, 2021, 19:23:50
Would that be the same unions that have regularly called for public ownership of the railways ?

Now, do you mean public ownership, or public operation, or both, or none?...

A new public body called Great British Railways will specify the timetables...but private operators will still exist and run the trains.

Great British Railways will set the fares...except in some circumstances where the private operators will set the fares.

The devolved administrations will continue to award contracts and set fares...but Wales will have to do so jointly with Great British Railways in future, while Scotland will be invited to "explore options" for doing so. Both will be required to accept Great British Railways branding.

Great British Railways will eliminate the fragmentation endemic in the current system...except where allowing multiple "new and innovative bidders", community rail partnerships and open access operators to run local services creates even more fragmentation.

Now, I do appreciate the instinct to celebrate the apparent second coming of British Rail, and I dont want to come across as some Neo-Gallic version of Eeyore intent on raining on your parade but...

...It won't work so don't do it!!!  ;D


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 20:29:28
From the BBC's report (earlier) - a nice passenger summary (though still some stuff in here which may be more principle than practice)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/gbr_7.jpg)


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 20, 2021, 20:46:41
Would that be the same unions that have regularly called for public ownership of the railways ?

Now, do you mean public ownership, or public operation, or both, or none?...

A new public body called Great British Railways will specify the timetables...but private operators will still exist and run the trains.

Great British Railways will set the fares...except in some circumstances where the private operators will set the fares.

The devolved administrations will continue to award contracts and set fares...but Wales will have to do so jointly with Great British Railways in future, while Scotland will be invited to "explore options" for doing so. Both will be required to accept Great British Railways branding.

Great British Railways will eliminate the fragmentation endemic in the current system...except where allowing multiple "new and innovative bidders", community rail partnerships and open access operators to run local services creates even more fragmentation.

Now, I do appreciate the instinct to celebrate the apparent second coming of British Rail, and I dont want to come across as some Neo-Gallic version of Eeyore intent on raining on your parade but...

...It won't work so don't do it!!!  ;D

The new arrangements are not full public ownership, but are a significant step towards public ownership, and should therefore surely be welcomed by the relevant trades unions.

I personally have some misgivings and remember the faults of BR, but think that this is PROBABLY a forward step.
My main concern is the civil service love of over complicating everything that they can.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 20, 2021, 21:02:02
I’d love to know what would have happened with the Williams review had the pandemic not happened and it’s measures instantly becoming far easier to push through!


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 20, 2021, 21:16:56
I’d love to know what would have happened with the Williams review had the pandemic not happened and it’s measures instantly becoming far easier to push through!

Fascinating but hypothetical question.   We could discuss it long into the night summer and never come to an agreement at how it would have gone.

I speculate, though, it would have been called "Williams" and not "Williams-Shapps", with the government much more wanting to distance itself from those hard-to-push-through elements, and with no recovery-from-covid dividend it could take the credit for.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: RichardB on May 20, 2021, 21:38:10
I’d love to know what would have happened with the Williams review had the pandemic not happened and it’s measures instantly becoming far easier to push through!

I speculate, though, it would have been called "Williams" and not "Williams-Shapps".

I think it is really interesting that Grant Shapps has added his name to this and I think it is very positive too.  A sign to me that the Government are really committed to implementing the plan. 


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TonyN on May 20, 2021, 21:50:04
I wonder if this Increase in Pay as you go journeys is to be driven off the existing fares database.

The one that tried to tell me yesterday that the cheapest ticket I could buy for a return trip from Oxford to Newbury with a senior railcard leaving at 09.32 was £31.25 and only 3 tickets where left.  This showed on my West Midland trains App and the National Rail Enquires App.

Further investigation found that this fare was the First class period off peak return available after 09:00 as is the Standard class day return at £9.60. Later trains showed the standard class fare.

As to why only 3 tickets where available is another mystery of the database.

I bought the £9.60 ticket and as I was already on the train I was aware that it conveyed standard and first class accomadation.

Looking at the same 2 Apps for tomorrow at 09:32 shows the correct standard class fare.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on May 20, 2021, 22:02:52
Is either service reservsable? If so, the system might be required to reserve you a seat - certainly on XC from Oxford-Reading, and possibly GWR on IEPs too. It would show only the class of seat left available.

For example, Cross Country franchise trains (XC) is sold out on most trains tomorrow afternoon already, with no tickets available « sold out »

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 21, 2021, 07:32:22
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57186489

Quote
The government has announced the creation of a new unified state-owned rail body called Great British Railways (GBR), promising better and more efficient train services from 2023 onwards.

It says the reforms will make travel smoother, removing the existing "over-complicated and fragmented" system.

Complaining about rail travel in the UK has long been a national pastime. There is even a popular board game about signal failures and network problems that British families have been playing since 1973.

But the pandemic has brought about new challenges and life is unlikely to look the same as it did before.

So what do commuters want now? Rail travellers tell us their key concerns.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TaplowGreen on May 21, 2021, 08:22:12

Lots to look forward too. Not least some sort of national livery!


...............but perhaps not the same advertising models!...... :o


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 21, 2021, 08:31:06
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57186489

Quote
The government has announced the creation of a new unified state-owned rail body called Great British Railways (GBR), promising better and more efficient train services from 2023 onwards.

It says the reforms will make travel smoother, removing the existing "over-complicated and fragmented" system.

Complaining about rail travel in the UK has long been a national pastime. There is even a popular board game about signal failures and network problems that British families have been playing since 1973.

But the pandemic has brought about new challenges and life is unlikely to look the same as it did before.

So what do commuters want now? Rail travellers tell us their key concerns.

A flurry of BBC articles -  above covers So what do commuters want now? Rail travellers tell us their key concerns.

New article at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57187882 covers Rail reform: What does the shake-up mean for you?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 21, 2021, 12:22:19
View from "We Own It" ...



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 21, 2021, 17:17:57
I wonder if this Increase in Pay as you go journeys is to be driven off the existing fares database.

The one that tried to tell me yesterday that the cheapest ticket I could buy for a return trip from Oxford to Newbury with a senior railcard leaving at 09.32 was £31.25 and only 3 tickets where left.  This showed on my West Midland trains App and the National Rail Enquires App.

Further investigation found that this fare was the First class period off peak return available after 09:00 as is the Standard class day return at £9.60. Later trains showed the standard class fare.

As to why only 3 tickets where available is another mystery of the database.

I bought the £9.60 ticket and as I was already on the train I was aware that it conveyed standard and first class accomadation.

Looking at the same 2 Apps for tomorrow at 09:32 shows the correct standard class fare.

I have been trying to book a trip out tomorrow.
* Selected outbound train - AOK. 
* Selected return train - AOK
* Told I must reserve seats
* Entered choices forward / table / window / quiet
... only then message comes up that no seats are available on "one of the trains selected" and suggests "try another"

Oh dear
- why did it offer me trains that there were no seats available on?
- why did it have me select the seat type before saying "nothing on one of these trains"?
- why didn't it tell me WHICH train was full even at that point so I knew which one to change?

I have tried various combinations and found nothing

I can't help wondering ..
- If the system is being intentionally customer unfriendly to put people off travelling
- Whether people will trust a new automated 'pay as you go system' if it's based on something as awkward as this
- Whether all the fare experts who have been working for their TOC will be able to spend time sorting out the customer experience once they all become part of GBR.



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eXPassenger on May 21, 2021, 17:42:02
Also no TOC timetable staff & no staff required to determine cause and attribution of every delay. No fares staff either. Slimmed down TOCs will result in cost reduction and potentially cheaper contracts to run trains.

Since the TOCs will be incentivized to be punctual I suspect more staff will be needed to determine the cause and duration of delays and to negotiate with GBR staff.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Surrey 455 on May 21, 2021, 19:50:57

I have been trying to book a trip out tomorrow.
* Selected outbound train - AOK. 
* Selected return train - AOK
* Told I must reserve seats
* Entered choices forward / table / window / quiet
... only then message comes up that no seats are available on "one of the trains selected" and suggests "try another"

Oh dear
- why did it offer me trains that there were no seats available on?
- why did it have me select the seat type before saying "nothing on one of these trains"?
- why didn't it tell me WHICH train was full even at that point so I knew which one to change?

I have tried various combinations and found nothing

I can't help wondering ..
- If the system is being intentionally customer unfriendly to put people off travelling
- Whether people will trust a new automated 'pay as you go system' if it's based on something as awkward as this
- Whether all the fare experts who have been working for their TOC will be able to spend time sorting out the customer experience once they all become part of GBR.



Last year, tried to book a ticket for immediate travel on the GWR app. One way only involving two trains. App said no, you need a reservation but you can't have one. Fortunately the ticket machine was not as fussy and happily gave me a ticket for the same price. No reservation needed.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: onthecushions on May 21, 2021, 22:46:41

I think it is really interesting that Grant Shapps has added his name to this and I think it is very positive too.  A sign to me that the Government are really committed to implementing the plan. 


I would add that the top DfT officials in the Rail executive must have also had a big hand in preparing all this detail. As it effectively rubbishes their predecessors privatisation work from the 1990's onwards it is very brave.

I like Chapter 7, Section 52. No qualifications. And it is a White paper.

Just follow through, Boris.

OTC


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 22, 2021, 01:04:37

I think it is really interesting that Grant Shapps has added his name to this and I think it is very positive too.  A sign to me that the Government are really committed to implementing the plan. 


I would add that the top DfT officials in the Rail executive must have also had a big hand in preparing all this detail. As it effectively rubbishes their predecessors privatisation work from the 1990's onwards it is very brave.

I like Chapter 7, Section 52. No qualifications. And it is a White paper.

Just follow through, Boris.

OTC

I think you will find that Chapter 4, Section 25 is nearer the mark. Think of Bus Back Better and Great British Railways - The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail as two sides of the same coin, with BBB designed to be utterly irreversible, and GBR designed to be eminently reversible "As passenger numbers recover".

If this were truly the return to British Rail that everyone seems to think it is, then the Private TOC's would have been swept away, and GBR would be running the trains themselves. Instead, the Private TOC's will be left intact to bide their time until coronavirus is a distant memory, the next election is in the bag, and "normal service" can be resumed.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TaplowGreen on May 22, 2021, 14:04:58
Interesting angle.....

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rail-revolution-is-nothing-of-the-sort/amp?__twitter_impression=true


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on May 22, 2021, 14:37:00
Interesting angle.....

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rail-revolution-is-nothing-of-the-sort/amp?__twitter_impression=true

But what is their or his angle? The piece points out that almost nothing has changed - which sticks out a mile, I agree with Lee on that.  But the only aspirations mentioned for something else are the unions', for nationalisation. I don't think the Spectator shares those.

Here's another quote - from the Economist, in September when Shapps announced the "failure of franchising". Their analysis ended with : "When the covid crisis ends, Britain will probably move to a new franchising system, in which private companies bid to operate lines but take less financial risk." And that (apart from my quibble about the term "franchise") is what is being proposed.

I don't think the TOCs'contracts ever deserved to be called franchises, and still less do they now. Nor concessions, really - both terms imply significant commercial freedoms: i.e. a licence to act as an independent private company. Of those freedoms, managing the track and the rolling stock was never included, fare pricing has largely gone, timetabling almost totally (the service level is dictated by DfT), so what's left? A bit of superficial branding and just one big one (until last year), revenue risk. And now those last vestiges are to go; more of a skirmish than a revolution.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: onthecushions on May 22, 2021, 21:32:13

If this were truly the return to British Rail that everyone seems to think it is, then the Private TOC's would have been swept away, and GBR would be running the trains themselves. Instead, the Private TOC's will be left intact to bide their time until coronavirus is a distant memory, the next election is in the bag, and "normal service" can be resumed.


But (G)BR will be in charge of the concessions and be operator of last resort. GBR will also be publicly answerable for operations so concessionaires will have more motivation to behave... or be sacked. Even in BR days the Region and Area had some freedom for special trains and fares where local conditions indicated. Open access will only be relevant where there is spare capacity (and demand).

The (G)BR proposal is radical enough, without additionally trying to create from scratch a Nationwide public sector TOC, which would also be operator of last resort!

Let's not run before we can walk.

OTC


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 23, 2021, 11:21:14

If this were truly the return to British Rail that everyone seems to think it is, then the Private TOC's would have been swept away, and GBR would be running the trains themselves. Instead, the Private TOC's will be left intact to bide their time until coronavirus is a distant memory, the next election is in the bag, and "normal service" can be resumed.


But (G)BR will be in charge of the concessions and be operator of last resort. GBR will also be publicly answerable for operations so concessionaires will have more motivation to behave... or be sacked. Even in BR days the Region and Area had some freedom for special trains and fares where local conditions indicated. Open access will only be relevant where there is spare capacity (and demand).

The (G)BR proposal is radical enough, without additionally trying to create from scratch a Nationwide public sector TOC, which would also be operator of last resort!

Let's not run before we can walk.

OTC

The point I was actually trying to make - which stuving spotted and picked up on in his post - was that if you leave the Private TOC's intact, and you "abolish" Network Rail, but allow it to design and create its successor in its own image, then it really is as both WeOwnIt's Pascale Robinson and the Spectator's Ross Clark suggest - largely a case of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

You dont have to agree with or endorse either of their radically different ideologies or ethos in order to recognise that - but it should be seen as a rather big red flag that they both think it.

If passenger numbers do recover, then Chapter 4, Section 25 looks "oven-ready" to enable a return to something very similar to the "franchise" system - or however else you want to describe it.

And if passenger numbers dont recover...well, it will need something a lot more radical than these proposals to fix that.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Bob_Blakey on May 23, 2021, 18:02:09
Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail : Page 14

'Overcomplication appears built into many aspects of the rail network. There are around 75 different types of train in passenger service on today’s network, imposing greater costs in maintenance, regulation and crew training.22 No commercial airline would have that many types of aircraft; no bus, coach or lorry company that many types of vehicle.'

Since the days of franchisees specifying what rolling stock is operated are over who gets to do this in the future? Surely this function must pass to GBR (Great British Railways). In which case is this project missing a golden opportunity to both progressively reduce the variety of the rolling stock portfolio and have GBR own any new trains. The document indicates (Page 81) that the ROSCO's will remain in business, something I regard as disappointing to say the least.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eightonedee on May 23, 2021, 18:36:34
This is one part of the report where I am not sure that the comparison with airlines is helpful, albeit that there is an underlying sound point to be made. No airline has as many planes as the entire UK rail system, and there are no third rail/OHL/non-electrified split to be dealt with. The impression I have (without spending a long time on Wikipedia checking it out) is that most of the UK rolling stock comes from a small number of suppliers, and many of the different types are members of larger "families" of types that have been adapted for different power sources or use.

What is not satisfactory is that many do not seem to be capable of working in multiple with one another, as a recent post about rescuing a broken down class 769 indicates. From the stories coming out about software problems being an issue with Crossrail and the "new" Isle of Wight stock, I an concerned that this is another possible source of reducing inter-operability.

As regards the ROSCOS continuing, I am not so concerned. I would rather available funds were spent elsewhere rather than in buying out the current leases. In this respect the airline industry (if I understand it correctly) runs largely on leasing assets. Not sure I would want to be in the aircraft leasing business at present! 


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 23, 2021, 18:40:42
Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail : Page 14

'Overcomplication appears built into many aspects of the rail network. There are around 75 different types of train in passenger service on today’s network ...

Let's go for one sort of train for each major sector then.  If there's a problem it'll be easier to withdraw them all and put them through the same checks and repairs.    Silly having Pedelinos, Voyagers and Meridians really when they all could be 80x trains.



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 23, 2021, 18:48:03
I would certainly support some standardisation of new rolling stock.

A dozen mechanical designs should meet almost any needs, with differing internal fit out as needed.

AC electric intercity/long distance trains, 125 MPH, end doors.
AC electric suburban trains, 100 MPH, doors at one third/two thirds.

DC electric intercity trains, 110 MPH, end doors.
DC electric suburban trains, 80 MPH, doors at one third and two thirds.

Dual mode AC/DC trains two versions, similar to the AC electric versions.

That is six basic designs, to which could be added another six bi-modes, each of the above plus battery power.

Sleepers could be the same MECHANICAL design but with different internal fit out.

Mixed trains with provision for carrying mail, light freight and the like would be the same mechanical design, but with one vehicle given over to mail or freight.



Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 23, 2021, 18:57:40
Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail : Page 14

'Overcomplication appears built into many aspects of the rail network. There are around 75 different types of train in passenger service on today’s network ...

Let's go for one sort of train for each major sector then.  If there's a problem it'll be easier to withdraw them all and put them through the same checks and repairs.    Silly having Pedelinos, Voyagers and Meridians really when they all could be 80x trains.



Pedelino - Is that the new Venetian high-speed tilting gondola train hybrid?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 23, 2021, 19:04:02
Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail : Page 14

'Overcomplication appears built into many aspects of the rail network. There are around 75 different types of train in passenger service on today’s network ...

Let's go for one sort of train for each major sector then.  If there's a problem it'll be easier to withdraw them all and put them through the same checks and repairs.    Silly having Pedelinos, Voyagers and Meridians really when they all could be 80x trains.



I agree, despite the present IET problems. To avoid any recurrence of this problem, I would go for a STAGED replacement of existing stock.
Suppose as an example, that in say 2028, that 30 new trains are needed, long distance, 25Kv/battery power. I would say that 30 new trains should be ordered. After some years of satisfactory service, additional stock of THE SAME DESIGN may be ordered, for other fleet renewals. Newer types of component, such as a different type of battery may be used in the follow on order but the follow on trains MUST be fully inter-operable with the older ones, and have exactly the same cabs and controls.
And different components should only be allowed when there is a clear advantage in so doing.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: jamestheredengine on May 23, 2021, 19:38:26
I'd suggest staging it as ordering extra 9-car 80x's ASAP, with the new-spec interiors. As they come online, use that as a convenient time to refit the existing 9-car units. Then once there are enough 9-car units to cover the Paddington services, cascade the 5-car units onto routes where the interiors will be considered less sub-standard, such as the West Wales services, Cardiff-Portsmouth, and Cardiff-Nottingham. This would create a timescale for getting terminus stations ready for 9-car trains (resiting that bloody starter signal at Carmarthen, etc) and clearing obstructions (e.g. singling or gauntletting the Hamble Viaduct).


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 23, 2021, 20:04:48
I'd suggest staging it as ordering extra 9-car 80x's ASAP, with the new-spec interiors. As they come online, use that as a convenient time to refit the existing 9-car units. Then once there are enough 9-car units to cover the Paddington services, cascade the 5-car units onto routes where the interiors will be considered less sub-standard, such as the West Wales services, Cardiff-Portsmouth, and Cardiff-Nottingham. This would create a timescale for getting terminus stations ready for 9-car trains (resiting that bloody starter signal at Carmarthen, etc) and clearing obstructions (e.g. singling or gauntletting the Hamble Viaduct).

Agree.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 23, 2021, 20:54:51
From Christian Wolmar (https://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2021/05/the-great-british-railway-is-a-fudge-riding-for-a-fail/)

Quote
The Great British Railway is a fudge riding for a fail

We all knew it was a mistake and we told them so. When the Tory government pushed through the privatisation of the railways a quarter of a century ago, it involved splitting up British Rail into more than 100 companies. At the time, everyone, from Tory backbenchers and the Labour party to British Rail managers, warned that it was a reckless plan that would cost money and do nothing to improve the railways.

[snip]

Now the very same political party that broke up British Rail because it was supposedly inefficient, hidebound by tradition and unaccountable, wants to stick Humpty Dumpty back together again.

[snip]

Despite all this, ideology still stops us getting the sensible railway passengers deserve. Instead of simply running the trains themselves, Great British Railways will contract out services to private companies, most of which are actually owned by foreign state railways such as the French SNCF and the German Deutsche Bahn. This will add cost and complexity. At the last election, Labour suggested simply renationalising the whole system. This is three-quarters of the way there, but it would have been better to go the whole hog.

[snip]




Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: broadgage on May 23, 2021, 22:04:51
I'd suggest staging it as ordering extra 9-car 80x's ASAP, with the new-spec interiors. As they come online, use that as a convenient time to refit the existing 9-car units. Then once there are enough 9-car units to cover the Paddington services, cascade the 5-car units onto routes where the interiors will be considered less sub-standard, such as the West Wales services, Cardiff-Portsmouth, and Cardiff-Nottingham. This would create a timescale for getting terminus stations ready for 9-car trains (resiting that bloody starter signal at Carmarthen, etc) and clearing obstructions (e.g. singling or gauntletting the Hamble Viaduct).

Agree, and in more detail to my earlier hasty reply.
DESPITE the present issues I would support the purchase of additional Hitachi IETs.
My well known dislike of the wretched things is due to the appalling internal fit out and facilities that are unsuitable for inter city routes.
Build some more 9 car sets, but with a proper inter city layout, including padded seats, buffet, luggage space and other luxuries.
Use these new inter city sets on GWR long distance services, and then withdraw and improve the existing 9 car sets to a similar specification.
Cascade the 5 car sets to secondary or regional services.

I dont much like underfloor engines but would reluctantly accept these if the trains were in all other respects proper intercity trains and not suburban DMUs.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: IndustryInsider on May 23, 2021, 22:43:23
In the brave new world of GBR, I’m sure there will be many millions of pounds growing on trees for yet more new trains and associated extra costs.  But surely building a couple of dozen more Tornado’s would be a much better solution?  ::)


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 23, 2021, 23:19:08
In the brave new world of GBR, I’m sure there will be many millions of pounds growing on trees for yet more new trains and associated extra costs.  But surely building a couple of dozen more Tornado’s would be a much better solution?  ::)

<sarcasm>But won't the scrapping of class 43 power cars and class 365 trains and building of replacements with more rapid designed obsolescence help the economy by boosting employment (in train building)?  By choosing steam locomotives that need to run around their carriages, look at the infrastructure that need to be put back in too. And if we make the software nice and complicated, that employment can be all the greater - look at the 3 month closure to replace class 483 by 484 - extended to perhaps 8 months - that's almost 3 times more workdays!</sarcasm>


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 24, 2021, 09:52:46
Regarding Wolmar, the Spectator, the Economist and the WhoOwnsIt guy: This is the way everything that might be considered a public service is delivered in the UK, from emptying bins to mending roads and schools. Sometimes it's called franchising, sometimes contracts, tendering, or academies, but it's all variants on a service devised by government or authority and delivered by private enterprise, whether purely from profit or from tax money or something else. Yes, I know this is obvious, but it's so obvious that we don't seem to notice it; everything is details.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 24, 2021, 09:54:15
The name is pure Trainspotting. "Choose patriotism, choose nationalisation. Choose the future, choose the past. But we chose not to choose."

Well, time will tell soon enough how the details swing.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 24, 2021, 11:23:10
Regarding Wolmar, the Spectator, the Economist and the WhoOwnsIt guy: This is the way everything that might be considered a public service is delivered in the UK, from emptying bins to mending roads and schools. Sometimes it's called franchising, sometimes contracts, tendering, or academies, but it's all variants on a service devised by government or authority and delivered by private enterprise, whether purely from profit or from tax money or something else. Yes, I know this is obvious, but it's so obvious that we don't seem to notice it; everything is details.

The name is pure trainspotting. "Choose patriotism, choose nationalisation. Choose the future, choose the past. But we chose not to choose."

Well, time will tell soon enough how the details swing.

Time will indeed tell, although there may be a case for some tweaking of the messaging if there is a risk of the WeOwnIt Woman being mistaken for a bloke  ;D

On a more serious note, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see WeOwnIt take a prominent role as this saga unfolds, given that it was created and is run by another iconic female public transport campaigner - Cat Hobbs.

Several members will recall how, in her role as FoSBR campaigns chief in the mid to late 2000s, Cat took a Severn Beach Line that was partially bustituted and had barely survived two recent closure attempts, and masterminded a campaign that won for it a vastly improved all-rail service that has proven so successful that improving it further is a top MetroWest priority.

She was also always very supportive and helpful to grahame and myself regarding our work with Save The Train and CANBER - a commitment that continued after she left FoSBR for a high profile role at Campaign for Better Transport - and I have nothing but fond memories of working alongside her.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 24, 2021, 12:03:22
Regarding Wolmar, the Spectator, the Economist and the WhoOwnsIt guy: This is the way everything that might be considered a public service is delivered in the UK, from emptying bins to mending roads and schools. Sometimes it's called franchising, sometimes contracts, tendering, or academies, but it's all variants on a service devised by government or authority and delivered by private enterprise, whether purely from profit or from tax money or something else. Yes, I know this is obvious, but it's so obvious that we don't seem to notice it; everything is details.

The name is pure trainspotting. "Choose patriotism, choose nationalisation. Choose the future, choose the past. But we chose not to choose."

Well, time will tell soon enough how the details swing.

Time will indeed tell, although there may be a case for some tweaking of the messaging if there is a risk of the WeOwnIt Woman being mistaken for a bloke  ;D
My apologies to her, the rest of WeOwnIt, and everyone reading. I tried to look for the name (of the organisation) in this thread but couldn't find it, and the search function isn't helping either, even with the correct name.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 24, 2021, 12:26:58
Regarding Wolmar, the Spectator, the Economist and the WhoOwnsIt guy: This is the way everything that might be considered a public service is delivered in the UK, from emptying bins to mending roads and schools. Sometimes it's called franchising, sometimes contracts, tendering, or academies, but it's all variants on a service devised by government or authority and delivered by private enterprise, whether purely from profit or from tax money or something else. Yes, I know this is obvious, but it's so obvious that we don't seem to notice it; everything is details.

The name is pure trainspotting. "Choose patriotism, choose nationalisation. Choose the future, choose the past. But we chose not to choose."

Well, time will tell soon enough how the details swing.

Time will indeed tell, although there may be a case for some tweaking of the messaging if there is a risk of the WeOwnIt Woman being mistaken for a bloke  ;D
My apologies to her, the rest of WeOwnIt, and everyone reading. I tried to look for the name (of the organisation) in this thread but couldn't find it, and the search function isn't helping either, even with the correct name.

Fair enough - Yes, the original WeOwnIt video that grahame posted is back a page on this busy thread now. Here is Pascale Robinson saying her piece for those who missed it:

View from "We Own It" ...




Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 24, 2021, 17:56:33
Ah, yeah... I'd even watched the video when Grahame posted it.  ::)


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: johnneyw on May 24, 2021, 20:29:48
From Christian Wolmar (https://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2021/05/the-great-british-railway-is-a-fudge-riding-for-a-fail/)

Quote
The Great British Railway is a fudge riding for a fail

We all knew it was a mistake and we told them so. When the Tory government pushed through the privatisation of the railways a quarter of a century ago, it involved splitting up British Rail into more than 100 companies. At the time, everyone, from Tory backbenchers and the Labour party to British Rail managers, warned that it was a reckless plan that would cost money and do nothing to improve the railways.

[snip]

Now the very same political party that broke up British Rail because it was supposedly inefficient, hidebound by tradition and unaccountable, wants to stick Humpty Dumpty back together again.

[snip]

Despite all this, ideology still stops us getting the sensible railway passengers deserve. Instead of simply running the trains themselves, Great British Railways will contract out services to private companies, most of which are actually owned by foreign state railways such as the French SNCF and the German Deutsche Bahn. This will add cost and complexity. At the last election, Labour suggested simply renationalising the whole system. This is three-quarters of the way there, but it would have been better to go the whole hog.

[snip]




It must have been something of a bitter pill for the present government to swallow to admit the failure of a venture based on a key aspect of their party's ideology.  Small wonder perhaps that they may be trying to salvage what elements that they can as a face saving exercise.
It may well turn out that even what remains may wither away further over the next few months as the true purpose, usefulness and viability of the TOC's role is subject to further examination in the real world.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: onthecushions on May 25, 2021, 13:29:21
I don't understand the theological passion for nationalisation. It doesn't mean public ownership or participation or even ministerial oversight; it means micromanagement by an Oxbridge arts graduate civil service, specifically the Treasury. This results in ironing board seats, prejudice against electrification, poor investment decisions, bias against the UK regions, demoralisation of the workforce, purchase of foreign capital goods to destroy UK manufacturing, etc etc.

The best we could get IMHO, is a "proper" railway, owned by and accountable to the state but self managed with strong leadership, by a "General Manager" out of the mould of Pole, Aspinall, Walker etc. The Williams -Shh Report at least brings us nearer that.

OTC


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: bradshaw on May 25, 2021, 13:57:35
Transport Select Committee tomorrow at 09.30 on parliament.tv
Quote
Subject: Williams-Shapps plan for rail

09.30 Witness(es): Nigel Harris, Managing Editor, Rail (magazine)

10.00 Witness(es): Sir Peter Hendy, Chair, Network Rail; Andy Bagnall, Director General, Rail Delivery Group

10.45 Witness(es): Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State, Department for Transport; Keith Williams, Chair, Williams Rail Review; Conrad Bailey, Director General for Rail Strategy and Services, Department for Transport


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: johnneyw on May 25, 2021, 15:08:23
Transport Select Committee tomorrow at 09.30 on parliament.tv
Quote
Subject: Williams-Shapps plan for rail

09.30 Witness(es): Nigel Harris, Managing Editor, Rail (magazine)

10.00 Witness(es): Sir Peter Hendy, Chair, Network Rail; Andy Bagnall, Director General, Rail Delivery Group

10.45 Witness(es): Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State, Department for Transport; Keith Williams, Chair, Williams Rail Review; Conrad Bailey, Director General for Rail Strategy and Services, Department for Transport

Thank you for that, I shall have a cup of coffee at the ready for 09.30.  ☕


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on May 25, 2021, 15:33:11
Direct link here https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/9783fe54-3b04-40d4-b74c-32b0349dd43e


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 27, 2021, 07:52:18
Transport Select Committee tomorrow at 09.30 on parliament.tv
Quote
Subject: Williams-Shapps plan for rail

09.30 Witness(es): Nigel Harris, Managing Editor, Rail (magazine)

10.00 Witness(es): Sir Peter Hendy, Chair, Network Rail; Andy Bagnall, Director General, Rail Delivery Group

10.45 Witness(es): Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State, Department for Transport; Keith Williams, Chair, Williams Rail Review; Conrad Bailey, Director General for Rail Strategy and Services, Department for Transport

Some of the headlines look back rather than forward.

From the Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/network-rail-gwr-electrification-passengers-b1854115.html)

Quote
The disastrous project to electrify the Great Western railway lines to South Wales and the West of England has been condemned by the chair of Network Rail.

The scheme was delivered late, £2bn over budget and incomplete.

And in response to what Grant Shapps said, from the RMT (https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-grant-shapps-insulting-and-ill-informed-comments/)

Quote
RAIL UNION RMT slammed the Secretary of State Grant Shapps today after he used an appearance at the Transport Select Committee to put his full backing behind the pandemic profiteers while dismissing concerns about the plight of rail staff with ‘insulting and ill-informed bragging’ about his role in saving jobs.




Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Red Squirrel on May 28, 2021, 10:48:14
I attended the RAIL webinar on this yesterday. Hendy, Schute, Bagnall and Williams were all very positive about the plan.

If you have an hour-and-a-bit to spare, you can watch a recording here: https://www.bigmarker.com/bauer-media/RAIL-webinar?bmid=bc970b7cfab8


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on May 28, 2021, 11:47:50
I attended also - don't expect any answers to big questions though - apart from the flexi season tickets - all procedures (like who specifies/acquires/owns new rolling stock!) are still to be thrashed out.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Red Squirrel on May 28, 2021, 14:09:35
I attended also - don't expect any answers to big questions though - apart from the flexi season tickets - all procedures (like who specifies/acquires/owns new rolling stock!) are still to be thrashed out.

Yes - as Nigel Harris keeps saying, the devil is in the detail...

Worth watching the Select Committee meeting ChrisB linked to (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20846.msg306702#msg306702) as well!


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on May 28, 2021, 14:55:32
View and detailed analysis from Railfuture (https://railfuture.org.uk/article1882-Great-British-Railways):

Quote
On 20 May 2021, the government published the results of the long awaited Williams Rail Review in the form of a White Paper in preparation for legislation on the government's plan to transform the railways in Great Britain. It is now entitled the William-Shapps plan for rail.

It is not a consultation document, it is what the government are planning to do, requiring legislation. This briefing is not a consultation response either. It is designed to summarise and describe what is being proposed with a commentary.

Railfuture is in a good position to provide this for members and stakeholders, being non-political and not representing any individual interest, other than the well-being and development of our railways, including the people who use and work on our railways.

Our objective is that Railfuture members are engaged and informed on these changes and equipped to enter into informed dialogue on them, irrespective of individual politics.

Feedback from members, branches and stakeholders will be welcomed as the industry moves towards implementation and we see greater clarity on individual aspirations in the White Paper.

l-o-n-g article snipped

Quote
Conclusion, Delivering the revolution.

The paper proposes an Advisory Group to support the Secretary of State, as one would expect, even if it is of little consequence other than for information. Much more significant is the proposal to ask Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of Network Rail, to bring this together and establish interim arrangements, and set up Great British Railways.

This is a revolution for sure, even if the review did not start off as a revolution.

The stated desired outcomes are excellent. The actual outcomes however could well range from a fantastic way forward for our rail system to a dismal monolithic failure. The plan will have its detractors, particularly those who will lose money if the plan to implement efficiency and reduce complexity succeeds.

It certainly deserves a chance.

Above anything else, success will depend on capable leadership. Appointing Andrew Haines to lead the process alongside Sir Peter Hendy as Chair of Network Rail, the key player, is a very good omen.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 28, 2021, 15:21:54
View and detailed analysis from Railfuture (https://railfuture.org.uk/article1882-Great-British-Railways):

Quote
On 20 May 2021, the government published the results of the long awaited Williams Rail Review in the form of a White Paper in preparation for legislation on the government's plan to transform the railways in Great Britain. It is now entitled the William-Shapps plan for rail.

It is not a consultation document, it is what the government are planning to do, requiring legislation. This briefing is not a consultation response either. It is designed to summarise and describe what is being proposed with a commentary.

Railfuture is in a good position to provide this for members and stakeholders, being non-political and not representing any individual interest, other than the well-being and development of our railways, including the people who use and work on our railways.

Our objective is that Railfuture members are engaged and informed on these changes and equipped to enter into informed dialogue on them, irrespective of individual politics.

Feedback from members, branches and stakeholders will be welcomed as the industry moves towards implementation and we see greater clarity on individual aspirations in the White Paper.

l-o-n-g article snipped

Quote
Conclusion, Delivering the revolution.

The paper proposes an Advisory Group to support the Secretary of State, as one would expect, even if it is of little consequence other than for information. Much more significant is the proposal to ask Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of Network Rail, to bring this together and establish interim arrangements, and set up Great British Railways.

This is a revolution for sure, even if the review did not start off as a revolution.

The stated desired outcomes are excellent. The actual outcomes however could well range from a fantastic way forward for our rail system to a dismal monolithic failure. The plan will have its detractors, particularly those who will lose money if the plan to implement efficiency and reduce complexity succeeds.

It certainly deserves a chance.

Above anything else, success will depend on capable leadership. Appointing Andrew Haines to lead the process alongside Sir Peter Hendy as Chair of Network Rail, the key player, is a very good omen.


I'm a detractor, and i dont stand to lose any money at all!


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: onthecushions on May 28, 2021, 16:25:41

I'm a detractor, and i dont stand to lose any money at all!


I imagine that we could all lose money (and possibly many of our precious passenger train services) if it fails.

Unless we live outside the UK, that is!
 ;)
OTC


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Lee on May 28, 2021, 16:56:27

I'm a detractor, and i dont stand to lose any money at all!


I imagine that we could all lose money (and possibly many of our precious passenger train services) if it fails.

Unless we live outside the UK, that is!
 ;)
OTC

Very true - Although to be fair, I do work in a public transport system that implemented their version of Bus Back Better some years ago, and has its rail services partly specified by the people that use them, as opposed to gambling on a system that puts them in the hands of people who dont listen to the people that use them!


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Electric train on May 28, 2021, 20:40:55
I attended the RAIL webinar on this yesterday. Hendy, Schute, Bagnall and Williams were all very positive about the plan.

If you have an hour-and-a-bit to spare, you can watch a recording here: https://www.bigmarker.com/bauer-media/RAIL-webinar?bmid=bc970b7cfab8

And in 1994 so where John Major MP and John MacGregor MP very positive about their plan for the Railways


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Red Squirrel on May 29, 2021, 10:44:47
I attended the RAIL webinar on this yesterday. Hendy, Schute, Bagnall and Williams were all very positive about the plan.

If you have an hour-and-a-bit to spare, you can watch a recording here: https://www.bigmarker.com/bauer-media/RAIL-webinar?bmid=bc970b7cfab8

And in 1994 so where John Major MP and John MacGregor MP very positive about their plan for the Railways

The fact that both those people have the letters 'MP' after their name should augur caution. This time, it's quite different; people who have a good understanding of how rail works are welcoming the changes.

One of the key things that is emphasised in the webinar and the Rail Committee meeting is how the DfT's meddling costs so much and delivers so little. As an example, Nigel Harris reckons IET's cost three times as much as they should. When operators asked if it was possible for them to have seats that don't put passengers in agony, the DfT responded with a flat 'no'.

Williams said that decisions about organisation came at the end of the review, as a result of his findings, after functions and roles had been determined. It's really hard to understand what people thing would be gained by nationalising the railways per se, given that most of what is wrong with them today has its roots in DfT micromanagement.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: bradshaw on March 30, 2022, 19:37:48

Wendy Morton, andrew Haines and Conrad Bailey were interviewed by the Transport Committee this morning. Available via this link
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e0a73f05-59f8-4e20-bf8b-f2dfd8339842

Provides an update on progress. All three seemed to have a good grasp of their briefs.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: stuving on June 10, 2022, 11:03:59
A consultation on the legislation for GBR (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/williams-shapps-plan-for-rail-legislative-changes-to-implement-rail-reform) was launched yesterday:
Quote
Consultation description

We are asking for opinions on proposed changes to primary legislation required to bring about rail reform.

This consultation covers:

    core functions and duties of Great British Railways
    new governance framework
    reform of wider industry structures and processes

We are also seeking evidence of the risks and potential implications of the policies proposed to inform our impact assessments. This includes any potential costs, benefits, disadvantages or risks.

Our current appraisal is contained in the impact assessments published alongside this consultation. It will be updated when the Transport Bill is laid in Parliament.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on June 10, 2022, 11:11:04
This is where I believe User Groups & their like need to ensure that there is a consultation requirement on GBR Railways over customer-side operations like Fares and specifically timetables - and not simply to advocate groups like Tranmsport Focus & Local Councils!

Get responding!


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on June 10, 2022, 11:30:20
I have mirrored the consultation document (here) (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/williams-shapps-plan-for-rail-consultation-on-legislation-to-implement-rail-transformation-print-version.pdf)


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: GBM on July 05, 2022, 13:10:49
Sorry grahame, Melksham doesn't appear to be on the short listing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-62047964
Six towns have been announced as the shortlist to become the home of Great British Railways (GBR).
....continues....


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on July 05, 2022, 15:18:40
Sorry grahame, Melksham doesn't appear to be on the short listing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-62047964
Six towns have been announced as the shortlist to become the home of Great British Railways (GBR).
....continues....

Quote
Birmingham, Crewe, Derby, Doncaster, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and York will now go to a public vote where people can choose the town or city they think makes the best case to operate the rail headquarters.

A total of 42 towns and cities had bid to host the base since the competition to find a home for the headquarters was launched in October.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: infoman on July 05, 2022, 16:05:30
Does Scotland,as well as Transport for Wales,come under GBR?

If not Birmingham, Crewe or Derby is fine by me.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: eXPassenger on July 05, 2022, 19:16:15
A public vote looks like a recipe for Railway McRail face.
Do the job properly by  listing the requirements and scoring each of the shortlisted candidates.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on July 05, 2022, 20:31:16
It’s simply a guide vote, not a public winner.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on July 17, 2022, 20:57:02
It’s simply a guide vote, not a public winner.
So what is the point of it? Will the choice of site have an effect on the quality of the decisions emanating from it?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: JayMac on September 28, 2022, 09:03:43
"Great British Railways is dead"

So says Christian Wolmar. The future certainly doesn't look that bright.

From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/28/great-british-railways-is-dead-rail-industry-at-lowest-ebb-since-the-days-of-railtrack):

Quote
Great British Railways is dead’: rail industry at lowest ebb since the days of Railtrack
Grant Shapps ‘revolutionary’ GBR plan faces huge challenges

Barely 18 months have elapsed since a starry-eyed Grant Shapps unveiled the blueprint for a “revolutionary” Great British Railways, but it already has the flavour of an optimistic misnomer. Even an adequate British railway would be welcomed by those passengers stranded by everything from Avanti’s collapse to failing infrastructure and unprecedented strikes.

Only a fraction of the timetabled trains continue to run between London and Britain’s biggest cities, though operator Avanti has pledged to start its recovery to full service this week. National strikes, the likes of which had not been seen for 30 years, are now a regular occurrence, with little sign of breakthrough in talks. Infrastructure projects have been pared back or shelved, with the public all but gaslit with reannounced schemes for new railways.

Rail’s financial structures, credited by proponents of privatisation with revitalising the industry for 25 years, have been ripped up. The pandemic played a hugely damaging role, prompting the blanket scrapping of franchising as passenger revenue disappeared. But Covid arguably only accelerated the death of a system that was already acknowledged to be falling apart.

The Williams-Shapps review, commissioned back in 2018, long gestating and long delayed, ended up with the proposed creation of Great British Railways – a guiding mind, bringing together Network Rail and train operators, issuing better contracts, with sensible fares and ticketing, putting passengers first and independent of government micromanagement. Few in the industry argued with the conclusions. But few now are sure exactly when – or if – they will be followed through.

A transition team is in place, working up the details from the white paper. But many see little prospect in this parliamentary session for the bill promised in the Queen’s speech.

Even before Shapps departed in Boris Johnson’s wake, the Department for Transport’s officials found themselves in an unexpected battle. A year after the plan was released, fundamental aspects were not agreed with the Treasury. Internal documents seen by the Guardian reveal clashes over core policy issues, such as whether the new GBR would indeed have independent control of timetabling and the design of services, or where revenue risk should lie.

Civil servants have grown increasingly disillusioned with progress, despite the millions spent, the time invested, and the platoons of consultants employed. The most tangible sign of action was the public poll launched this summer, in a Shapps wheeze, to pick the future HQ of GBR. The results are still under wraps, unsettling rail staff already installed in London and Milton Keynes, and leaving some to ponder whether they are ready for life in Doncaster, if the favourite York doesn’t make it.

That announcement is apparently one of the first in the in-tray of new transport secretary, Anne-Marie Trevelyan – even if rail’s wider purgatory may not end soon. But, as one rail source puts it: “Something’s got to give. The industry’s in a complete mess, there’s no certainty. GBR was meant to be the future. Delaying it is just prolonging the paralysis.”

Christian Wolmar, the rail historian, makes a blunter prediction: “GBR is dead. There is no legislation and they will have to muddle through. The grand ideas did not really accord. Does this government really like the idea of a strong arms-length organisation running the railways?”
The railway’s problems are evident, he says: “When you travel in the trains there’s a feeling that no one really cares if the trains are late, or where you need to go. If they keep trying to push through cuts it will deteriorate. There’s a real breakdown in morale in managers and staff.”

The mini-budget unveiled on Friday by Kwasi Kwarteng is unlikely to help: announcing plans to stop strikes and hamper unions asking for a cost-of-living pay rise, while effectively raising the pay of bosses across the negotiating table – let alone its wider economic effects on the industry.

The government did not confirm whether it would be taking forward Shapps’ GBR plans. A DfT spokesperson says: “Our railways are in need of modernisation and this new government is committed to building a reliable, punctual and affordable service that’s fit for the 21st century.”

They add: “We’re accelerating a number of rail projects through our ambitious new Growth Plan, and our £96bn integrated rail plan will deliver improvements quicker than previous plans and benefit millions for generations to come by electrifying lines, delivering hi-tech trains and powering up projects like HS2.”

The promise to “accelerate infrastructure schemes”, such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, listed vaguely at no 96 in the appendix of the growth plan, received a sceptical welcome from an industry which has waited years for a basic pipeline of works to be updated. Those closer to the flagship schemes already approved, such as East-West Rail, are already hinting they are more likely to be abandoned.

For Wolmar, the industry – still under instruction to close the £2bn revenue gap from lost commuters – is at its lowest ebb since the disaster-scarred days of Railtrack, two decades ago. “The problem this time is that it’s really structural,” he says. “You can’t see a way out of it all without very strong direction. But after franchising, there’s no real idea what to do.”

Reform may instead come from a different political direction: Labour, leading strongly in the polls since Friday, reaffirmed at conference its commitment to renationalisation of rail as train operators’ contracts expire. Unless GBR is up and running by 2024, it may find it has run out of track.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Western Pathfinder on October 19, 2022, 10:09:42
Confirmation coming from parliament today all ready on twitter,that it's being scrapped
What a waste of time and money that was total and utter C/F...


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on October 19, 2022, 10:20:31
Confirmation coming from parliament today all ready on twitter,that it's being scrapped
What a waste of time and money that was total and utter C/F...

Q $64,000 - so how are the railways going to be organised and run in the future?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: grahame on October 19, 2022, 13:23:05
Confirmation coming from parliament today all ready on twitter,that it's being scrapped
What a waste of time and money that was total and utter C/F...

The BBC says delayed rather than scrapped - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63313823

Quote
The establishment of a new public body to operate Britain's railways is set to be delayed, after Transport Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said a draft law was being delayed.

The Transport Bill was to have included the creation of Great British Railways.

Ms Trevelyan said her department had "lost the opportunity" to bring forward the bill in this session of Parliament.

She admitted this meant GBR was unlikely to be fully in place by early 2024, as had been hoped.

But she said she expected "the hiatus will be short", adding that the legislation should follow in the next session of parliament, from next May.

But will it ever come back, or is this a "Portishead Bounce" where it will keep being kicked out so it never actually happens?


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: ChrisB on October 19, 2022, 19:19:49
Delayed until 2024....but with the General Election no later than January 2025, will it ever surface? Now would be a god time for Labour to tell us their ideas....they won't though.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: PhilWakely on October 19, 2022, 19:32:53
Delayed until 2024....but with the General Election no later than January 2025, will it ever surface? Now would be a good time for Labour to tell us their ideas....they won't though.

Similar to 1997, it is almost as if the Tories will deliberately leave Labour in an impossible position. I don't think Labour can tell us what they'll do as the economy will be so devastated they won't be able to do exactly what they want.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TonyK on October 19, 2022, 20:35:02
Delayed until 2024....but with the General Election no later than January 2025, will it ever surface? Now would be a good time for Labour to tell us their ideas....they won't though.

Similar to 1997, it is almost as if the Tories will deliberately leave Labour in an impossible position. I don't think Labour can tell us what they'll do as the economy will be so devastated they won't be able to do exactly what they want.

Wasn't it Alistair Darling who left the note for incoming Chancellor George Osborne saying that he was sorry, but the money was all gone? The next Chancellor is likely to be less fortunate, and get a note saying the national credit card is max'd out, or at least the outgoing incumbent (is outcumbent a word?) thinks it is, but he's been burning the statements without opening them for the past year or two. Whoever gets the gig will have a tough time of getting things into some semblance of order, and I can't see new capital projects being first on the agenda. It would be wrong to cancel things already under way, or to bog down approved plans in interminable reviews, but any incoming administration would be advised to take stock before reaching for the cheque book. Governments don't actually have money other than what we hand over, and we might be down on our collective luck when the day comes.

GBR isn't far off the ground yet, just the X-Factor competition to choose a home so far, something Eurovision does much better. I can't imagine it would be seen as a pressing matter in the life of this parliament, however many days that may be, and it will be a small part of any party manifesto commitment to renationalise the railways officially. I doubt very much that we will see protests demanding its introduction in place of Network Rail, with retired vicars and librarians sellotaping themselves to stations or suchlike.

Meanwhile, Grant Shapps has been brought in to breathe new life into the Home Office, or at least some life. I'm not expecting miracles there, just the usual promise to reduce illegal migration, followed by an increase in illegal migration. He worked his ticket at DfT. I'm sure he can do that again, it won't be for long.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TaplowGreen on October 20, 2022, 07:13:58
Delayed until 2024....but with the General Election no later than January 2025, will it ever surface? Now would be a good time for Labour to tell us their ideas....they won't though.

Similar to 1997, it is almost as if the Tories will deliberately leave Labour in an impossible position. I don't think Labour can tell us what they'll do as the economy will be so devastated they won't be able to do exactly what they want.

Wasn't it Alistair Darling who left the note for incoming Chancellor George Osborne saying that he was sorry, but the money was all gone? The next Chancellor is likely to be less fortunate, and get a note saying the national credit card is max'd out, or at least the outgoing incumbent (is outcumbent a word?) thinks it is, but he's been burning the statements without opening them for the past year or two. Whoever gets the gig will have a tough time of getting things into some semblance of order, and I can't see new capital projects being first on the agenda. It would be wrong to cancel things already under way, or to bog down approved plans in interminable reviews, but any incoming administration would be advised to take stock before reaching for the cheque book. Governments don't actually have money other than what we hand over, and we might be down on our collective luck when the day comes.

GBR isn't far off the ground yet, just the X-Factor competition to choose a home so far, something Eurovision does much better. I can't imagine it would be seen as a pressing matter in the life of this parliament, however many days that may be, and it will be a small part of any party manifesto commitment to renationalise the railways officially. I doubt very much that we will see protests demanding its introduction in place of Network Rail, with retired vicars and librarians sellotaping themselves to stations or suchlike.

Meanwhile, Grant Shapps has been brought in to breathe new life into the Home Office, or at least some life. I'm not expecting miracles there, just the usual promise to reduce illegal migration, followed by an increase in illegal migration. He worked his ticket at DfT. I'm sure he can do that again, it won't be for long.

It was Liam Byrne, not Alistair Darling.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: Bmblbzzz on October 20, 2022, 08:05:43
... the outgoing incumbent (is outcumbent a word?)
Excumbent? Though in the case of some, a more appropriate word might be cucumbent.


Quote
I doubt very much that we will see protests demanding its introduction in place of Network Rail, with retired vicars and librarians sellotaping themselves to stations or suchlike.
Sellotape ruins books! Librarians would use Pritt Stick, or perhaps a particularly strong Post-It note.


Title: Re: Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail / Great British Railways
Post by: TonyK on October 20, 2022, 09:47:55

It was Liam Byrne, not Alistair Darling.

I am indebted. I don't like to cast nasturtiums at the wrong person.



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