Major changes to Network Rail proposed

[Southernman46]

Witness the last two day's debacle on Wessex - everyone's focused on targets, KPI's and green boards' and all that shite, and nobody thought to maintain the electrical supply intake equipment at Basingstoke - that's if they even knew it was there - the result of which has pretty much wiped out the period performance figures that are held so dear ...................

 

 

JUST MAINTAIN THE FECKIN RAILWAY !!!!!!!!

 

Said with the fury only a 3 hour journey from Poplar to Andover can produce .....................

Edited December 7, 2016 by Southernman46

[caradoc]

(Note: All figures quoted below are guestimates for illustrative purposes only)

 

From: Department of Transport

To: Prospective bidders for the East Midlands franchise

 

You are required to provide:

 

A fleet of trains to maintain the service on the specified routes

Maintenance and servicing facilities for the above

Staff to operate, clean and maintain the fleet

Station facilities and staff as directed

On-line enquiry, reservation and ticketing systems

 

Oh, by the way, you are also now required to maintain:

 

Track: 190 route miles, comprising (mainly) quadruple and double track; Perhaps 600 track miles in total

Signals: 300

Track Circuits: 600

Point ends: 150

Power supply: To every location required, with standby supplies for key equipment

Signalling cables: Too much to count

Power cables; Ditto

Level Crossings (public): 20

Level Crossings (private/User Worked): 30

Bridges: 200

Tunnels: 10

Signalling Centres: 3

Overhead electrification; 50 route (200 track) miles

Listed buildings: 10

Station buildings: 30

Control Office: 1, to manage your and all other services on the route

Plus, probably, other things we haven't thought about yet.

 

Note that no disruptive access to maintain the above infrastructure will be granted without the agreement of the other operators (some of whom compete with you) on the affected route.  

 

Your expressions of interest are awaited.

[Dunsignalling]

Witness the last two day's debacle on Wessex - everyone's focused on targets, KPI's and green boards' and all that shite, and nobody thought to maintain the electrical supply intake equipment at Basingstoke - that's if they even knew it was there - the result of which has pretty much wiped out the period performance figures that are held so dear ...................

 

 

JUST MAINTAIN THE FECKIN RAILWAY !!!!!!!!

 

Said with the fury only a 3 hour journey from Poplar to Andover can produce .....................

Some of those attending the WoE Line Escaped Signallers Xmas Lunch in Axminster were "forced" to spend an extra couple of hours in the pub while things got moving again. 

 

No fury on my part but the extra two or three pints meant I was a bit fragile this morning.

 

Hope everybody that left just before it became apparent what beginning to kick off got home earlier than me. 

 

John

[Glorious NSE]

Overhead electrification; 50 route (200 track) miles

 

That's assuming they don't take over in the middle of a program of electrifying more of it which seems to be a bit up in the air at the moment...

[Purley Oaks]

The London Mayor is not happy - it would seem that the DfT have gone cool on devolving further rail services to TfLs control.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38224664

 

The cynic in me wonders if this is a reaction to the Mayors decision to Freeze TfL fares for the next 5 years causing them to be increasingly out of step with DfT controlled ones.

I thought that TfL was working well, especially after the East Surrey Line upgrade to London Overground.

 

How has TfL been doing?

 

Mal

[brianusa]

(Note: All figures quoted below are guestimates for illustrative purposes only)

 

From: Department of Transport

To: Prospective bidders for the East Midlands franchise

 

You are required to provide:

 

A fleet of trains to maintain the service on the specified routes

Maintenance and servicing facilities for the above

Staff to operate, clean and maintain the fleet

Station facilities and staff as directed

On-line enquiry, reservation and ticketing systems

 

Oh, by the way, you are also now required to maintain:

 

Track: 190 route miles, comprising (mainly) quadruple and double track; Perhaps 600 track miles in total

Signals: 300

Track Circuits: 600

Point ends: 150

Power supply: To every location required, with standby supplies for key equipment

Signalling cables: Too much to count

Power cables; Ditto

Level Crossings (public): 20

Level Crossings (private/User Worked): 30

Bridges: 200

Tunnels: 10

Signalling Centres: 3

Overhead electrification; 50 route (200 track) miles

Listed buildings: 10

Station buildings: 30

Control Office: 1, to manage your and all other services on the route

Plus, probably, other things we haven't thought about yet.

 

Note that no disruptive access to maintain the above infrastructure will be granted without the agreement of the other operators (some of whom compete with you) on the affected route.  

 

Your expressions of interest are awaited.

 

Surely this is how it was; various separate railways building, operating and maintaining stock and infrastructure.  Sure, they came and went, some even made money for a while but this is still the way its done in the US.  Even little short lines, some not so short, operate this way although they may use somebody else's unwanted infrastructure so what's to prevent the same thing happening in the UK.  Read TOC's, or what they may be currently called, for short lines and it begins to look the same.  Or is this too simple?

 

Brian.

[Mike Storey]

Surely this is how it was; various separate railways building, operating and maintaining stock and infrastructure.  Sure, they came and went, some even made money for a while but this is still the way its done in the US.  Even little short lines, some not so short, operate this way although they may use somebody else's unwanted infrastructure so what's to prevent the same thing happening in the UK.  Read TOC's, or what they may be currently called, for short lines and it begins to look the same.  Or is this too simple?

 

Brian.

 

Given the poor state of long distance passenger train travel in the USA, and even some commuter services, given the almost total lack of high speed operation (and the huge vested opposition against same in California, the North East and Florida, delaying those schemes by a decade or more), given the inadequacy of signalling and safety systems on almost all lines outside the North East and to some extent in the Bay area and increasingly LA, to safely handle any density of passenger train operation greater than one or two a week (freight only operation needs far fewer safety systems and a different approach to operations and maintenance), and given the number of anti-trust actions against various of the major freight conglomerates over the years, I would suggest it is the very last model anyone would actually choose for the UK Brian!

 

But I think we could all imagine certain politicians advocating such a system, which would fit nicely with their view of the "right solution" for the health service and so on. Fact is, it probably permanently involves more lawyers, as does everything in the USA, than could ever be imagined in the UK. It suits the idea of small government and virtually unregulated free market. Hence massive explosions in small towns, level crossing accident statistics that make your eyes water and the almost complete absence of competition from new entrants. New entrants enter only by acquisition, or by starting with short lines, that majors cannot make pay because of labour agreements, but short liners can make pay by sacking everyone and starting again (there is no such thing as TUPE in the USA, which is why labour unions are so aggressive and litigious), on minimum wage, minimum maintenance and minimum staff with major automation. But none have managed to break into the big time, other than a few specialist flows. Ask Trump voters about that.

 

The US system works extremely well for mass movements of enormous freight trains and feeders to those, via the Short Line operators (of which the parent of EW&S was one), but that has involved long ago leaving the world of the Chatanooga-Choo-Choo period. There is no doubt that such hard-core aggression in their markets has won the railroads very major market shares in freight, especially given the Teamsters's dominance of road haulage, but it is not the regulated environment within which a nurtured passenger market is going to thrive. Ask anyone in Amtrak.

[jjb1970]

One thing that struck me about the TfL situation is the idea that franchises outside London should fall within the jurisdiction of the elected mayor of London. I can see some potential technical advantages of expanding TfL but also significant political problems in the idea of peoples train services being subject to a party political mayor who they cannot vote for and whose only concern will be London local politics. If things went well it wouldn't be a problem but if things went wrong then what accountability would there be to people outside London?

[Gerald Henriksen]

Surely this is how it was; various separate railways building, operating and maintaining stock and infrastructure.  Sure, they came and went, some even made money for a while but this is still the way its done in the US.

 

It is only still done this way in the US because the railways have evolved into a niche system - long and slow freight trains - that actually makes money.

 

Read TOC's, or what they may be currently called, for short lines and it begins to look the same.  Or is this too simple?

TOC's would be called Amtrak / Caltrain / etc. and not shortlines - shortlines in general run on their own infrastructure and don't have competitors also running on their tracks.

 

The essential problem is that the trains running in the UK don't divide up nicely into subsets using separate tracks - and once you have multiple operators all using the same rail then conflicts will inevitably arise if one of those operators gets to make the rules by "owning" the track.

[Mike Storey]

One thing that struck me about the TfL situation is the idea that franchises outside London should fall within the jurisdiction of the elected mayor of London. I can see some potential technical advantages of expanding TfL but also significant political problems in the idea of peoples train services being subject to a party political mayor who they cannot vote for and whose only concern will be London local politics. If things went well it wouldn't be a problem but if things went wrong then what accountability would there be to people outside London?

 

Those are the very concerns voiced by the councils in Kent, Sussex, Surrey and so on. But recent discussions seem to have resolved their concerns. In particular, the ORR will continue to arbitrate in disputed matters and NR will remain the controlling mind as regards access.

 

I propose that there is logic in this idea. South of the river, the vast majority (or a large minority if you like) of users will be those working or studying in London, but living outside the constituency boundaries, who also have no vote in how London is run. Those that do live within the Mayoral boundaries currently rely on national strategies and decisions, for their local journeys, where they do not live next to a LUL or DLR station. They are the majority currently in South London. TfL would appear willing and able to invest heavily in urban services, to the extent that neither the TOCs nor NR are willing or able. This is certainly needed - the contrast between TfL funded Overground services and station environments and the rest is now staggering. So long as a third party can make the final decisions on track access, to ensure the interests of non-TfL services are protected, I see only merit in the proposal.

 

Thus I would agree that the apparent backtracking on what seemed a done deal, has its origins in the Treasury and not by the previous objectors.

[caradoc]

Surely this is how it was; various separate railways building, operating and maintaining stock and infrastructure.  Sure, they came and went, some even made money for a while but this is still the way its done in the US.  Even little short lines, some not so short, operate this way although they may use somebody else's unwanted infrastructure so what's to prevent the same thing happening in the UK.  Read TOC's, or what they may be currently called, for short lines and it begins to look the same.  Or is this too simple?

 

Brian.

 

Brianusa, you are absolutely right that historically, and still in many if not most places, one company provides the entire rail system, track, trains etc, however this has not been the case in Britain since 1994. The point I am making is that Train Operating Companies might go from having no responsibility whatsoever for infrastructure provision and maintenance, to almost overnight taking on Network Rail's extremely onerous duties, as per the list I devised. This could only be an expensive, complex and time-consuming process, and in my opinion would not guarantee that infrastructure maintenance would be any better or cheaper. And, without wishing to be rude, I have to say that a USA short line does not really have a lot in common with a British TOC; My local operator, for example, Scotrail runs over 2000 trains per day.

[Andy7]

Not read through any of this thread but I'm guessing what will happen is company x will take on contract and will sub-contract infrastructure maintenance to a third party! Let's call this company Rail Network! This company may well end up maintaining all of the U.K track infrastructure in exactly the same way as it is today. One thing which may stop this could be a monopoly clause but as I said I have not read the thread or any specific details on the new policy.

[SwissRailPassion]

It's not privatisation but Alliances based on the SWT model that was. SWT Alliance was successful but there was a move away from it. It seems sensible for the routes and TOC/FOCs to be in alliances and have common control for planning and ops.

[skipepsi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38238980  It is that man again he might come unstuck or he may be Teflon...

[Mad McCann]

Directed by their reptilian overlords, no doubt?

 

.

Doubtful, I grant you, Ron, since we have monsters in human form a-plenty on this rock but it often pays to ask; "Cui bono?".

 

Dave. 

[phil-b259]

I thought that TfL was working well, especially after the East Surrey Line upgrade to London Overground.

 

How has TfL been doing?

 

Mal

 

Thats precisely the point - the concession system TfL use for the Overground has produced good results for users and has also enabled fares on Overground routes to be Frozen by the Mayor.

 

The DfT don't like this as it undermines their stated position that Franchising remains the best way of securing passenger benefits.

[phil-b259]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38238980  It is that man again he might come unstuck or he may be Teflon...

 

I doubt the DfT would have been gone so cold on the proposal had Zac Goldsmith been in charge at City Hall - particularly as he wouldn't have put in place a fare freeze that could cause actually massive problems for London due to the Treasury abolishing TfLs operating grant (which in laymans terms means that TfL must be 100% self financing with no subsidy at all from 2018 and Whitehall will only dole out money for capital projects).

[jjb1970]

I think concession is more accurate to describe what the railways call franchising for most services. A normal franchise would generally involve a third party paying to use the branding, image etc of a recognised organisation and providing a product that people think is provided by that organisation. Such as the various fast food restaurants which use the franchise system where it may be branded as KFC, Subway, Pizza Hut etc. Scotrail and the Overground seem to be more of a franchise as the Scottish Government and TfL define the livery and corporate branding etc. What the railways call franchising is more a case of companies bidding for the right to operate a service and which entails royalty payments to the government and meeting minimum service requirements than a franchise as such, it seems closer to what would normally be described as a concession rather than as a franchise.

[Glorious NSE]

I doubt the DfT would have been gone so cold on the proposal had Zac Goldsmith been in charge at City Hall - particularly as he wouldn't have put in place a fare freeze that could cause actually massive problems for London due to the Treasury abolishing TfLs operating grant (which in laymans terms means that TfL must be 100% self financing with no subsidy at all from 2018 and Whitehall will only dole out money for capital projects).

 

The higher staffing levels of TfL's services (whilst they are DOO, they counterbalance that by having all stations staffed from first to last train) are in direct contrast to the DfT's mission to cut costs, so you may well be on to something there...

[Supaned]

The higher staffing levels of TfL's services (whilst they are DOO, they counterbalance that by having all stations staffed from first to last train) are in direct contrast to the DfT's mission to cut costs, so you may well be on to something there...

 

It would be interesting to see whether the staffing costs are higher on LOROL than an equivalent TOC with guards & token station staff. Presumably each station requires an absolute minimum of 3 staff to provide the shift coverage needed - whilst their wage will be less than a guard , having more of them may well prove to be less cost effective.

[Mike Storey]

It would be interesting to see whether the staffing costs are higher on LOROL than an equivalent TOC with guards & token station staff. Presumably each station requires an absolute minimum of 3 staff to provide the shift coverage needed - whilst their wage will be less than a guard , having more of them may well prove to be less cost effective.

 

You may well have a point there, but in doing that calculation, you should also remember that the Overground uses very high numbers of mobile Revenue Protection staff, far more than is apparent on other TOCs (I say apparent because I have no figures, but it certainly seems that way) - they very frequently appear on trains and at barrier lines, at all hours, and are normally in three's.

[Glorious NSE]

It would be interesting to see whether the staffing costs are higher on LOROL than an equivalent TOC with guards & token station staff. Presumably each station requires an absolute minimum of 3 staff to provide the shift coverage needed - whilst their wage will be less than a guard , having more of them may well prove to be less cost effective.

Would have thought you'd be talking a lot more than 3 staff to cover a 7 day a week service from stupid o'clock in the morning to a midnight-ish finish at a given station (though presumably their staff would be able to work at more than one if needed?)

 

This is the kind of thing where it would be great to have a sensible national discussion minus the rhetoric on what an acceptable staffing solution is for a given type of operation, even if that means some currently guard operated routes end up going DOO, and maybe even some currently DOO routes reverting to guard operation. 

 

I think how Overground have done this works well personally, whilst you don't have a guard on the train you are never more than a couple of minutes from a station where you know there is assistance to be had. And the transformation in perceived personal safety on the stations is utterly amazing compared to what it was when they were unstaffed.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

You may well have a point there, but in doing that calculation, you should also remember that the Overground uses very high numbers of mobile Revenue Protection staff, far more than is apparent on other TOCs (I say apparent because I have no figures, but it certainly seems that way) - they very frequently appear on trains and at barrier lines, at all hours, and are normally in three's.

 

GWR do the same although it might be limited to the former London Division.  They recruited a lot more revenue protection folk about 3 years ago (I was told about 2 dozen additional posts were created) and I think they were all former London Division based.  They cover trains either in pairs or threesomes plus 'station swoops' in much larger numbers.

 

Although oddly the level of checking on long distance GWR services seems to have fallen off and is not so consistent as it used to be.

[ess1uk]

There were plenty of revenue staff at Filton Abbey Wood the other week when I was there.

At least 2 each side of the foot bridge.

[Edwin_m]

I think concession is more accurate to describe what the railways call franchising for most services. A normal franchise would generally involve a third party paying to use the branding, image etc of a recognised organisation and providing a product that people think is provided by that organisation. Such as the various fast food restaurants which use the franchise system where it may be branded as KFC, Subway, Pizza Hut etc. Scotrail and the Overground seem to be more of a franchise as the Scottish Government and TfL define the livery and corporate branding etc. What the railways call franchising is more a case of companies bidding for the right to operate a service and which entails royalty payments to the government and meeting minimum service requirements than a franchise as such, it seems closer to what would normally be described as a concession rather than as a franchise.

I've always though that was the case and I assume the reason the word "franchise" is used in the UK rail industry is because someone in the Major government thought "concession" would suggest "conceding" to private sector interests.  Ironically "concession" as on Scotrail and Overground is much more similar to what is called a "franchise" in the other industries.