Major changes to Network Rail proposed

[phil-b259]

Good headline figure - who are you trying to kid 1.5% doesn't even come close to covering what we would lose by having annual leave in hours rather than days!

 

 

And the desire to shrink S&T teams to 2 people on a regular basis, oh and make everyone 'multiskilled' (someone comment about S&T being told to fix trains in depots not being a complete flight of fancy in light of what has been suggested).

 

Yes it can seem inflexible to some having separate disciplines - but those who work in them soon appreciate the reason. Trackwork or signalling or electrification are complex things to look after and maintain. The saying "Jack of all trades and master of none" comes to mind.

 

Note:- based on the sorts of pay rises we have received over the past 5 years (compared to say NHS staff that received multiple years of below inflation pay rises in the name of Austerity) you cannot ignore that railway workers have actually faired rather well over the same period. I would also point out the McNulty report said the the days of above inflation pay rises HAD to come to an end (The hidden message being we are overpaid compared to 'other' industries).

Edited December 4, 2016 by phil-b259

[Nimbus]

I'm worried that if maintainence schedules and repairs are purely down to the operators then they will put them back to as late a date as possible (keeping the line as profitable for as long before repair work) thus making it more dangerous. 

 

And what happens as the end of a franchise looms into view?

 

The Nim.

[caradoc]

Anyone remember what the vertically-integrated BR did when track on the Oxford/Worcester line was due for renewal in the early 1980s ?

They withdrew the majority of loco-hauled trains from the route instead of improving the track.

[Southernman46]

This type of thing has been trialled in Wessex over the last few years with effectively a SWT "takeover" of NR and it HAS NOT WORKED, the TOC having realised that maintenance is what it is and you cannot magically do anything different just because you think it can ................. the track between Waterloo and Basingstoke is now the WORST it's been for years and yes I do know what I'm taking about. In other parts of the area, certain people are just about to removed from their posts (about bloody time too) because of their negligence with ultrasonic rail defect management - some defects being over 6 months overdue !!!!! without a retesting regime - practically a criminal offence in my view, and that's just the tip of what I know has been got away with in the past, don't start me on track geometry defect management.

 

Also there are now too many inexperienced graduates and poorly knowledged outsiders in key roles and too many of the remaining good people are demoralised and clamouring to leave because of the utter shambles it's turning into - and CrossRail is delighted to be gradually hovering them up and will do so over the next 2 years.

 

I mean, graduates as Assistant Track Maintenance Engineers - Come on !!!!  One recently removed a TSR at Weybridge because the track "looked OK", ignoring the fact that the poorly designed NR60 obtuse crossings in the S&C (protected by the TSR) would now be subject to hammering at 90mph again which would leading to their breaking again ....................

 

They have lost sight of the basics in maintenance and have ceased to fly the plane .................

 

One key thing from the BR vertically integrated railway was the General Manager and his organisation who DID take a sensible overview of things and ensure sensible management without the company allegencies that would be very hard to dispel these days ..................

 

Whatever happens. it needs sorting out and soon ...........................

 

Anyway - not my problem anymore - got out whilst the going was good - I just listen to those poor souls trying to hold it together, NR, just make sure that pension is paid on time each month.

 

Poorly put together and bitter rant over - back to the modelling.

[Gilloverland]

And the desire to shrink S&T teams to 2 people on a regular basis, oh and make everyone 'multiskilled' (someone comment about S&T being told to fix trains in depots not being a complete flight of fancy in light of what has been suggested).

 

Yes it can seem inflexible to some having separate disciplines - but those who work in them soon appreciate the reason. Trackwork / signalling or electrification are complex things to look after and maintain. The saying "Jack of all trades and master of none" comes to mind.

 

Note:- based on the sorts of pay rises we have received over the past 5 years (compared to say NHS staff that received multiple years of below inflation pay rises in the name of Austerity) you cannot ignore that railway workers have actually faired rather well over the same period. I would also point out the McNulty report said the the days of above inflation pay rises HAD to come to an end (The hidden message being we are overpaid compared to 'other' industries).

 

We may have kept pace in previous years but it should not a be a race to the bottom, if other industries aren't happy with our pay deals then they should organise and fight for their own, not attack us because of what we have got. 

[russ p]

It's something that we HAVE to fight, and not let chrome dome grayling destroy the pay and conditions we have fought for over the years.

Network rail break up is the tip of this government's ice berg . Even if it takes an all out national strike all grades across the industry must stand up for themselves

[corneliuslundie]

Gerry Fiennes said it years ago: "When you reorganise you bleed".

So when will the second battle of Havant be? (SWT and Southern presumably being the protagonists)

Half seriously, since they are the only outfit operating both passenger and freight trains in the UK, and have extensive experience of operating whole railways in Germany, just hand the lot over to DB. More seriously, it could well be that there will be so few franchise bids that something like that happens. I am sure there will be fewer players in 20 years than  there are now. If it was serious DB could probably get itself into that position. On the other hand it may decide after looking at its P&L account that it would be hetter retreating to the EU.

Absolutely seriously, while civil servants call the shots there will never be stability. I was told by an (excellent) engineer civil servant years ago that he was forced to spend much of his time dreaming up ideas so that ministers could grab the headlines with initiatives, virtually all of which disappeared by half way through implementation. Let's hope this latest attempt to reorganise goes the same way. The current setup is by no means perfect but it could be a lot worse.

Jonathan

[caradoc]

Southernman, I have to be careful what I say, but in my opinion it is no coincidence that the well-publicised dip in Scotrail's performance has occurred while the Scotrail 'Alliance' (which in many ways is not an alliance at all but a takeover by the TOC) is being set up. With the best will in the world, reorganising something as complex as a railway system cannot avoid diverting attention away from the day job.

[caradoc]

Do you know him [Chris Grayling] well?

I have had one meeting with him and he came across as very open and wanting to help.

He started the meeting by saying David had sent him to find out exactly what the problem was and needed help to understand the situation.

I presume that is how he approached the rail people.

He can only act on the strength and accuracy of what information that people provide.

On another occasion he bought a bottle of single malt for my colleagues so he can't be that bad.

Bernard

 

Chris Grayling may indeed be a very nice man, but if he truly believes that the massive reorganisation he seems to be proposing will lead to lower fares, he has demonstrated total ignorance of the organisational complexity of today's railway; Not a great characteristic for a Secretary of State for Transport. 

[Coryton]

Anyone remember what the vertically-integrated BR did when track on the Oxford/Worcester line was due for renewal in the early 1980s ?

They withdrew the majority of loco-hauled trains from the route instead of improving the track.

 

And perhaps this was the right approach.

 

For a cash-starved railway with falling passenger numbers, this may have been the optimum solution which was made possible by the vertically integrated structure.

 

(And if it fell under the requirement for a 7% return on investment in pure financial terms it may have been the only practical solution).

 

However I am speaking from a position of near total ignorance so I'd be very happy to hear from people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

And from my ignorant position, vertical integration is clearly workable because as pointed out it's been the norm for much of the history of railways. But given the number of TOCs we have it would be like going back to pre-grouping but with much much more running over foreign metals, and I'm not convinced that works, never mind that infrastructure then becomes a victim of the short-term thinking inherent to franchising.

 

And it doesn't sound good news for railfreight. Very different circumstances I admit, but the US structure of the freight companies owning the track and passengers trains paying to use it doesn't work very well and the reverse probably isn't much better.

 

Of course we could drastically re-draw the franchise map so we have fewer franchises and they are more concentrated geographically. I'm sure there's a way of splitting up the UK rail map into, say, four large franchises which could be responsible for infrastructure, passenger and freight trains in their areas. And if we try that and it doesn't work maybe we could combine them into one large company and nationalise it, before splitting it up into lots of pieces and selling them off again...?

[The Stationmaster]

And perhaps this was the right approach.

 

For a cash-starved railway with falling passenger numbers, this may have been the optimum solution which was made possible by the vertically integrated structure.

 

(And if it fell under the requirement for a 7% return on investment in pure financial terms it may have been the only practical solution).

 

However I am speaking from a position of near total ignorance so I'd be very happy to hear from people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

And from my ignorant position, vertical integration is clearly workable because as pointed out it's been the norm for much of the history of railways. But given the number of TOCs we have it would be like going back to pre-grouping but with much much more running over foreign metals, and I'm not convinced that works, never mind that infrastructure then becomes a victim of the short-term thinking inherent to franchising.

 

And it doesn't sound good news for railfreight. Very different circumstances I admit, but the US structure of the freight companies owning the track and passengers trains paying to use it doesn't work very well and the reverse probably isn't much better.

 

Of course we could drastically re-draw the franchise map so we have fewer franchises and they are more concentrated geographically. I'm sure there's a way of splitting up the UK rail map into, say, four large franchises which could be responsible for infrastructure, passenger and freight trains in their areas. And if we try that and it doesn't work maybe we could combine them into one large company and nationalise it, before splitting it up into lots of pieces and selling them off again...?

 

The important question is why does vertical integration work (assuming of course that it actually does work)?  it really depends I expect on what you think you want of your railway and understanding where and at what level compromises will have to be made - because with a limited cake of money to turn into slices those slices will be small and will not be proportionate in size.

 

In reality BR was a web of compromises which delivered unequal benefits to different parts of the business.  For example on the western when Phillip Rees was our Chief Civil Engineer we had what were arguably some of the best maintained mainline route trackwork on the whole of BR - built it was at the cost of relaying deferred for, literally. years elsewhere with consequential restrictions of speed and limitations on axle loading and, in the case of yards, a nice history of track condition related derailments.  the region progressed massively with resignalling in the 1960s and '70s but that was effectively funded by massive track rationalisation and sale of land - you can only sell off land once.

 

Now put that into a context where, say, an operator such as GWR gets involved in infrastructure management (for in reality that seems to be what is being talked about) - where do their priorities lie?  Are we back to other operators, particularly freight, becoming second class citizens because GWR will call the shots if they are putting in the money?  We would be back to the worst aspect of the fully sectorised which in reality was only improved (and operators given 'protection') by the creation of an infrastructure owner and the introduction of access contracts and a network change procedure - and the latter need not be the over burdened and oft ignored 'industry' it now seems ti have become.

 

If I genuinely wanted to save money in the overall railway industry I would proceed as follows -

1. Go back to where we started in 1994 with the various 'reconciliation bodies' (such as the one on which I served for 6 years) and kick out the legal trade and all the costs it adds.

2. Seriously overhaul the compensation (for delays and diversions etc) culture and the amounts involved which of necessity will also require a review of 'outside Rules (of The Route) engineering work practice.

3. Move various functions, especially timetable/access planning out of NR HQ and back to the Zones (or whatever they 're called this week) in a bid to re-inject some professionalism and avoid such things as the London Bridge nonsense by restoring the link between current ops and ops planning (and, in consequence engineering work and possession planning).

4. Probably reduce NR HQ senior management posts drastically - the company seems to be heavily over-managed at the top end.

5. Abolish RSSB and take the responsibility back into the heart of the industry where it can be related to real operational/engineering requirements and knowledge and things like the Rule Book can actually be related to the real railway by folk involved in the day-today responsibility for safety who have railway experience.

 

Then on Day 2 ...  ...

 

And I bet you that once that lot was implemented I would save more money in a month than the Grayling 'Think (sic) Tank' would save in a 12 month.

Edited December 4, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[PenrithBeacon]

Others, particularly Mike/Stationmaster have effectively debunked your above comments, so I doubt that I can add more, but I would ask you whether you have ever worked in the industry yourself?

 

Don't forget that Network Rail is one of the few organisations in the current rail industry ('fingers') where the 'profits' are not siphoned off by shareholders.

No I'm not a railwayman, I'm just one of the many millions of passenger/taxpayers who are utterly fed up with paying through the nose for the extravagant, incompetent and greedy ways of the current British railway. As for your reference to 'The Stationmasters' statement that all could be solved by adding more resources to the already gigantic bill for the railway, well, that is just risible.

 

Grayling has the right analysis so far. The problem is in the way the railway was de-nationalised, that the current structure just builds in un-necessary costs which the passenger/taxpayer has to fund. Whether that means that he will come up with a solution that will resolve the problem without re-nationalising the railway is another matter. Personally I doubt it.

[Coryton]

The important question is why does vertical integration work (assuming of course that it actually does work)?  it really depends I expect on what you think you want of your railway and understanding where and at what level compromises will have to be made - because with a limited cake of money to turn into slices those slices will be small and will not be proportionate in size.

 

 

It still seems strange to me that a structure which is how many railways still operate now, and the remainder did for most of their history, should turn out to be the "wrong" way to do it. In principle I would have thought that being able to take a top-level view of what was necessary, rather than the outcome being determined by negotiation between two organisations with different goals ought to be more efficient. But I've never tried to run a railway.

 

I wonder how Americans would react if it was suggested that their railways would run more efficiently if the track was taken away from the (largely) freight companies to be operated by a new state or privately run company? 

 

But if vertical integration really is going to be tried out, I hope it will be trialled in one area first.

 

If I recall correctly the Isle of Wight line was originally vertically integrated - and the franchisee promptly outsourced infrastructure to Network Rail. I'm not sure what that tells us.

[russ p]

No I'm not a railwayman, I'm

Neither is Grayling, and a large proportion of network rail management. This is one of the biggest parts of the problem. Mike ( stationmaster) was a highly respected railwayman.

The only downside of the railway paying the type of salaries that it has always deserved is we now have a massive influx of idiots, and it's the same idiots that have caused unnecessary management posts, unworkable and time consuming working practices and massive overspending on major projects.

These same people take pride in paying no respect to time honoured practices which are often far better but date back to their perceived evil period, nationalisation!

[phil-b259]

No I'm not a railwayman, I'm just one of the many millions of passenger/taxpayers who are utterly fed up with paying through the nose for the extravagant, incompetent and greedy ways of the current British railway. As for your reference to 'The Stationmasters' statement that all could be solved by adding more resources to the already gigantic bill for the railway, well, that is just risible.

 

Grayling has the right analysis so far. The problem is in the way the railway was de-nationalised, that the current structure just builds in un-necessary costs which the passenger/taxpayer has to fund. Whether that means that he will come up with a solution that will resolve the problem without re-nationalising the railway is another matter. Personally I doubt it.

 

I remind you that 'nationalisation' would let the DfT mandarins (who have orchestrated the whole breakdown in industrial relations at Southern over the past 12 months for what looks like the pursuit of political ideology) let lose on a much wider scale. Do not fall into the trap of imagining direct Government control (as opposed to Government control by proxy through pretend private sector companies) would be any more efficient or better for users.

 

Without frequent Governmental meddling and the constant changing of priorities, the railway industry would naturally be able to stabilise itself and actually control costs of its own accord. One of the big reasons that Chiltern have been so sucessfull is they have had the luxury of a 20 year franchise - allowing relationships to mature and long term solutions to be devised. For example its unlikely that Chiltern would have decided to bring in rebuilt Mk3s to upgrade their Birmingham offering if they had the usual 7 - 10 year franchise, nor would they have been motivated to push the creation of the new chord at Bicester allowing services through to Oxford.

 

Then we also have the IEP fiasco - a train directly designed and procured by HM Government that costs double or treble what the ROSCOs would have charged to come up with a similar solution and which is set to be the most expensive train to lease in the UK by a LONG way. One of the ROSCOs solution for the ECML involved buying new locos and a gutting + rebuild of the Mk4s in the ECML for example, but that got rejected by HM Government as it would have been very embarrassing for the DfT / Treasury.

 

Thus this latest 'reorganisation' will do nothing to do with controlling costs - and precious little to improve timekeeping, etc. particularly as the latter has a lot to do with the fact the UKs demand for train services significantly outstrips what the infrastructure (much of which dates from a time when ridership as declining year on year) can reliably deliver.

 

Complaining that trains are always late when operators try and squeeze 14tph through a layout that was only designed for 10tph or that the material costs of maintaining the railway are too high when the rails, point operating equipment are wearing out at twice the rate they were two decades ago or the staff costs are too high when so much work has to be done overnight / at weekends and H&S requirements are so much more restrictive than during BR days simply displays ignorance of the realities. If you want to go after the real cost increases then you need to be looking at things like short term franchises requiring new liveries / uniforms every 7 years - which are effectively decided by HM Government NOT the industry at large.

Edited December 4, 2016 by phil-b259

[corneliuslundie]

"But if vertical integration really is going to be tried out, I hope it will be trialled in one area first."

It will be at least partly in 2018  if the Welsh Assembly has its way, with the new franchisee responsible for overseeing electrification of the Valleys lines. But that may have gone west with the postponement of other electrification schemes.

Jonathan

[Gary H]

Ive been on WNXX talking and reading about this.

As far as I'm concerend and a great deal of others in the industry agree, this absolutely devastating and quite frankly fills me with dread. I cannot for the life of me think of a worse decision for our railway system!

This is Chris Grayling at work who probably has about 25 minutes worth of railway experience and that's being generous.

As a well known and respected GWR HS driver wrote on WNXX, "its like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".

Shocked and stunned at the utter stupidity of the folk "running" this country.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Gary H

[Gary H]

Neither is Grayling, and a large proportion of network rail management. This is one of the biggest parts of the problem. Mike ( stationmaster) was a highly respected railwayman.

The only downside of the railway paying the type of salaries that it has always deserved is we now have a massive influx of idiots, and it's the same idiots that have caused unnecessary management posts, unworkable and time consuming working practices and massive overspending on major projects.

These same people take pride in paying no respect to time honoured practices which are often far better but date back to their perceived evil period, nationalisation!

 

 

This^^^ is 100% accurate .

We need a post of the week button!

[PenrithBeacon]

I remind you that 'nationalisation' would let the DfT mandarins (who have orchestrated the whole breakdown in industrial relations at Southern over the past 12 months for what looks like the pursuit of political ideology) let lose on a much wider scale. Do not fall into the trap of imagining direct Government control (as opposed to Government control by proxy through pretend private sector companies) would be any more efficient or better for users.

 

Without frequent Governmental meddling and the constant changing of priorities, the railway industry would naturally be able to stabilise itself and actually control costs of its own accord. One of the big reasons that Chiltern have been so sucessfull is they have had the luxury of a 20 year franchise - allowing relationships to mature and long term solutions to be devised. For example its unlikely that Chiltern would have decided to bring in rebuilt Mk3s to upgrade their Birmingham offering if they had the usual 7 - 10 year franchise, nor would they have been motivated to push the creation of the new chord at Bicester allowing services through to Oxford.

 

Then we also have the IEP fiasco - a train directly designed and procured by HM Government that costs double or treble what the ROSCOs would have charged to come up with a similar solution and which is set to be the most expensive train to lease in the UK by a LONG way. One of the ROSCOs solution for the ECML involved buying new locos and a gutting + rebuild of the Mk4s in the ECML for example, but that got rejected by HM Government as it would have been very embarrassing for the DfT / Treasury.

 

Thus this latest 'reorganisation' will do nothing to do with controlling costs - and precious little to improve timekeeping, etc. particularly as the latter has a lot to do with the fact the UKs demand for train services significantly outstrips what the infrastructure (much of which dates from a time when ridership as declining year on year) can reliably deliver.

 

Complaining that trains are always late when operators try and squeeze 14tph through a layout that was only designed for 10tph or that the material costs of maintaining the railway are too high when the rails, point operating equipment are wearing out at twice the rate they were two decades ago or the staff costs are too high when so much work has to be done overnight / at weekends and H&S requirements are so much more restrictive than during BR days simply displays ignorance of the realities. If you want to go after the real cost increases then you need to be looking at things like short term franchises requiring new liveries / uniforms every 7 years - which are effectively decided by HM Government NOT the industry at large.

With respect, you are saddling me with opinions here that I didn't express. For what it is worth, I don't like nationalisation and you won't come across many avowed socialists who will say that. I have never come across another one!

 

My view is that the TOCs are absolutely ideal subjects for mutualisation, that the season ticket and railcard holders should own the service provider. That way the management of the TOCs will have no choice to pay regard to the people who actually use and pay for the railway, not to mention managerial salaries and pensions.

 

And while I'm setting the world to rights ...

 

 

I would enlarge the TOCs so they equate approximately to the grouping companies so their size is about right for economies of scale. I would have a specific TOC for Scotland.

 

These enlarged TOCs would merge together local, inter-urban and mainline services. Therefore there would be an LNE, LM, S, W and Sc TOCs. Should stop the TOCs from being so parochial.

 

The TOCs should take responsibility for the infrastructure in their geographic area.

 

The compensation culture must stop. In order to get compensation a TOC must get a judgement in a court or tribunal that their business was harmed either wilfully or due to incompetence on the part of the owner of the infrastructure. As most changes to the infrastructure are intended to improve the service and those day-to-day incidents that do occur are just that, incidents with no wilful intent to harm a TOCs business this should improve matters.

[Del]

I find it very odd that this proposal is completely at odds with the Shaw Report, commissioned by the Government in 2015 and published in March of this year.

[PenrithBeacon]

I find it very odd that this proposal is completely at odds with the Shaw Report, commissioned by the Government in 2015 and published in March of this year.

And why should I be obliged to agree with the Shaw Report?

[Del]

And why should I be obliged to agree with the Shaw Report?

 

You are not. But I would expect the Government to. Why ask for a report to be prepared, and then completely ignore the recommendations from it, and instead suggest a strategy that the report dismissed?

Edited December 4, 2016 by Del

[Fat Controller]

Remind me; is this the same lot at Marsham Street who said that getting rid of the toll booths (but not the tolls) on the Dartford Crossing would reduce traffic delays?

[pete_mcfarlane]

But do we actually know what's being proposed? All I'm seeing is media speculation, and reaction to that speculation. 

[Coryton]

My view is that the TOCs are absolutely ideal subjects for mutualisation, that the season ticket and railcard holders should own the service provider. That way the management of the TOCs will have no choice to pay regard to the people who actually use and pay for the railway, not to mention managerial salaries and pensions.

 

 

I used to find that commuters in London while generally expecting companies they were shareholders in to be run for the benefit of the shareholders felt that somehow the company that ran their trains was different and was supposed to spend whatever money it took to make sure a train was never cancelled at the expense of profit...