Great Western franchise to be broken up?

[whole diary]

[4064ReadingAbbey]

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

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

[IndustryInsider]

To arrive in London from Plymouth before 0900 the train wants £267, megabus on 4 weeks today, depart Plymouth at 0100 arriving at Victoria at 0725  is £7 single. A return departure from Victoria at 1800 arriving Plymouth 2345 is £8,
£15 return or £267 return isn't a hard choice for most.

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

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

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

[Tim]

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

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

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

[4064ReadingAbbey]

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

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

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

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

[Umberleigh]

I did a couple of Plymouth to Truro HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trips earlier this month and was surprised at just how quiet the services were, even the usually busy teatime up services from Truro. However, last Sunday I travelled from EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) on a XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) voyager and it was significantly busier, even in First Class.

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

[ChrisB]

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

[Tim]

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

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

[ChrisB]

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

[devonexpress]

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

[Tim]

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

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

[didcotdean]

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

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

[4064ReadingAbbey]

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

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

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

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

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

So many questions...

[JayMac]

So many questions...

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

[welshman]

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

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

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

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

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