British Railway Operations

[jeaton]

Very interesting and informative thread. GB is often cited as the model for splitting infrastructure and opening access to competing operating companies. However granting exclusive franchises, even for periods much less than the life of the operating equipment, still has to limit competition to a degree.

I noticed the absence of any specific numbers on total government dollars spent since privitization. Don Phillips has a sidebar on the subject in the September Trains. He notes that the government has pumped in $49.3 billion in the ten years since privatization and projections indicate another $73 billion will be needed over the next decade. You might not agree with every conclusion ever made by Phillips, but he gets his facts straight. In this case, he opines that the high popularity of the private passenger operations with a 41% growth since privatization and a 45% growth in freight traffic is pretty good news.

Jay

[Murphy Siding]

Is the amount of capital spent by the government since privatization comparible to what it had been spending on subsidizing before? On the whole, is this money better spent now, or before, under the old nationalized system?

[jeaton]

MS According to the Phillips item, in 1996, the last year of operation only 25% of the cost was paid by the public, whereas the factor for the actual spending for the last decade and the forecast for the next decade will be 50%. Maybe this comment is a partial answer. The rails are now safer than any time under nationalization.

Jay Eaton

[Anonymous]

It is a fallacy that the train operators and the freight operators run in the UK without subsidy. They are all subsidised to a degree - as Network Rail is a government company. Apply the duck test. If it looks and quacks - its a duck.

The debate as to how much the government spends and in its comparable form will always rage. In British Rail days the subsidy raged and any investment projects were controlled the Department of Transport - they set the targets such as the hurdle rate and then cut the figures back when they reckoned that things were getting out of control. This led to the "under investment" mantra - whereas commentators like Ford will argue that BR had the cash and spent it - quickly. remember that few Nationalised Railway Companies made money - British Rail did - shed loads of it during the lawson boom of the 1980's. The money which was spent was directed toward to where the priorities where - Intercity had a big chunk; the secondary (regional) railways were re-equipped with lightweight multiple units which in effect enabled many lines to take a maintenance holiday - a policy which was to come back and haunt Railtrack. Freight however was somewhat neglected apart from a few new locomotives. Those wishing to have wagons were told to lease or buy their own with few exceptions (English China Clay being one in my part of the world).

After privitisation and the split up - you factor in various companies trying to make their 15%; an immature market and tight construction industry and private companies finding that BR was not exactly inefficent and bingo costs rise. Also add in that there has never been an asset register; the condition of signalling and rails was carried in peoples heads and not on paper and as a result Railtrack found to its collective horror that actually it was a heavy engineering company and not a go getting property asset manager.

The rolling stock lease is in effect backed by the government - the ROSCOs will aim for the most go-anywhere train in theory so that the residual value will be higher. The lease for the stock will basically be transferred across for one TOC to another. Where there are several Train Operators under the same ownership there will be a certain amount of cascading from one operator to another. There is strong resentment from some quarters that rolling stock which was basically written off by British Rail is now subject to leasing costs. As for Employees all are now subject to TUPE (Transfer, Undertakings and Protection) legislation - European Law now dictates how British Law handles its employees. They are simply moved across on the same conditions and then the new employer must try and negotiate with the Unions as to the changes.

Open Access - the policy must be set - what sort of timetable between A and B do you want. I was astonished to find on a recent trip to Vancouver BC that there is the best part of 20m Can dollars of bi-level stock sitting in the yard and the commuter trip seems to be four one way then four the other - no day trips or back workings. That would not be tolerated here - the stock would be used for unremunerative off peak services so it earned a return and any subsidy paid would reflect that. Or the operator would then ask for a certain amount of protection if asked to operate these services and would be granted it as the public purse is not a black hole - therefore cross subsidization will take place and anybody who wants to run a competing service would be restricted.

If any other UK posters would like to comment I would be grateful.

[owlsroost]

I'd generally agree with Cogload's analysis of the situation.

I should have made it clear that when I was referring to 'no subsidy' TOC's I meant no direct subsidy payments to them. There are undoubtedly general 'system' subsidies and cross-subsidies between routes and operators happening in reality.

This is inevitable given that working out exactly how much each train contributes to the costs of the system is difficult/not worthwhile when in some cases they roam all over the system and share the same tracks with many other TOC's e.g. the freight operators and Virgin Cross-Country. I believe BR generally never bothered to allocate costs down to that level either - they basically allocated route costs to whichever business unit (InterCity, Regional Railways, Network South East, Freight) ran the majority of trains on that route, with adjustments to reflect the fact that heavy freight trains cause more track wear than lightweight DMU passenger trains etc. This tended to result in freight being subsidised by the passenger business, and I think this principle was carried over into privatisation by capping the track access charges for freight (a hidden subsidy) - it also made the ex-BR freight businesses more saleable.

Tony

[Anonymous]

One question regarding the makeup of freight. Since the Island is relatively small from a U.S. rail perspective (meaning U.S. railroad executives would say it's impossible for freight trains to make a profit 'cause it's all shorthaul 'cept for the Chunnel bound traffic), how much of the freight is domestic (in which I would include freight from the interior bound for export to a British port) and how much is Continental?

[Murphy Siding]

Thanks Guys. These Brits are always an interesting read!

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

One question regarding the makeup of freight. Since the Island is relatively small from a U.S. rail perspective (meaning U.S. railroad executives would say it's impossible for freight trains to make a profit 'cause it's all shorthaul 'cept for the Chunnel bound traffic), how much of the freight is domestic (in which I would include freight from the interior bound for export to a British port) and how much is Continental?

Most of the freight in the UK is domestic. Channel Tunnel freight is well below expectation, partly due to recent problems with asylum seekers trying to hitch a free ride on trains. But the French railways dont seem to have done much to encourage it either. EWS are now trying to get the class 66's approved for use in France so they can work trains there. (They're approved in most European countries where examples can be seen at work but not yet France!). The French seem to be dragging their feet though. Mr. Heller, the current head of EWS has said its a pity the chunnel doesnt go to Belgium! The Belgian Railways (SNCB) are more helpful and class 66's are already approved for operation there.

Coal is still the no 1 freight commodity in Britain, much of it imported, though there are still a few mines in Scotland. Steel traffic is still healthy; despite recent plant closure Corus (formerly British Steel) is still the 5th largest steel maker in the world. Automotive traffic is booming too. When the chunnel first opened Rover and Fiat used the same haulage company to distribute their cars. This company subcontracted long haul moves to BR with the result that the carr flat wagons would run from Britain to Italy with Rovers and come back with Fiats! Much of the traffic passing through the Chunnel is bound for Italy; we do as much trade with them as with France and much more than with Germany.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: though there are still a few mines in Scotland.

There are also 7 active deep mines in England + some surface extraction (producing about 4.6 million tonnes in the first six months of 2005) - see http://www.rjb.co.uk/

The rail freight situation in France is probably one of the worst examples of traditional state railways in the EU - high costs, obstructive unions, falling traffic due to poor service at high prices, and hence having to be propped up by the French taxpayer. There is an analysis of the situation here - http://www.rfg.org.uk/library/?pid=3158&lsid=3290&edname=17546.htm&ped=17546 (RFG is the rail freight industry pressure group in the UK).

Tony

[Murphy Siding]

Tulyar 15: Any thoughts on why the French would be dragging their feet on the Class 66 issue? Protectionism of some sort? It would seem that France would benefit from the use also.

[owlsroost]

The French public-sector unions are generally very protective of their jobs and benefits, so yes it's basically protectionism. The unions know that once open access operators get established in France it's likely to demonstrate just how inefficient the SNCF freight operation currently is, and will result in a lot of pressure on them to agree to job cuts, longer working hours etc. to try and compete.

We've been here before - the Class 92 electric locos which haul all freight trains through the Channel Tunnel were designed to be capable of running over the general French rail network as well (e.g. to Lille, a major rail centre in northern France). As far as I know, they've never strayed beyond Calais because the French rail unions refused to drive them, claiming they didn't meet the crashworthiness requirements (despite having been specifically designed to meet them) - but I don't think many people believed this was the real reason...

(Incidentally, at 6700hp the Class 92's are the most powerful locos running on the general UK rail system. The Eurotunnel shuttle train locos are considerably more powerful but are restricted to the Eurotunnel system only).

Tony

[Murphy Siding]

owlroost: Thanks for the input. I find this somewhat perplexing. It sounds like a turf battle in regards to the French. If a British locomotive were to go beyond Calais,I gather it would have to be with a French crew? What would the French Union have to lose from that? If the British locos turn around at Calais and return home, do the French units do the same thing on the British side? or is everything exchanged on the French side? What about cars? Are they free roaming throughout the European system?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

One question regarding the makeup of freight. Since the Island is relatively small from a U.S. rail perspective (meaning U.S. railroad executives would say it's impossible for freight trains to make a profit 'cause it's all shorthaul 'cept for the Chunnel bound traffic), how much of the freight is domestic (in which I would include freight from the interior bound for export to a British port) and how much is Continental?

Most of the freight in the UK is domestic. Channel Tunnel freight is well below expectation, partly due to recent problems with asylum seekers trying to hitch a free ride on trains. But the French railways dont seem to have done much to encourage it either. EWS are now trying to get the class 66's approved for use in France so they can work trains there. (They're approved in most European countries where examples can be seen at work but not yet France!). The French seem to be dragging their feet though. Mr. Heller, the current head of EWS has said its a pity the chunnel doesnt go to Belgium! The Belgian Railways (SNCB) are more helpful and class 66's are already approved for operation there.

Coal is still the no 1 freight commodity in Britain, much of it imported, though there are still a few mines in Scotland. Steel traffic is still healthy; despite recent plant closure Corus (formerly British Steel) is still the 5th largest steel maker in the world. Automotive traffic is booming too. When the chunnel first opened Rover and Fiat used the same haulage company to distribute their cars. This company subcontracted long haul moves to BR with the result that the carr flat wagons would run from Britain to Italy with Rovers and come back with Fiats! Much of the traffic passing through the Chunnel is bound for Italy; we do as much trade with them as with France and much more than with Germany.

Thanks for the information. The reason I ask about domestic freight volumes is that it is my belief that under open access "rejected" short haul opportunities (by a dominant rail carrier) would be picked up by a new upstart rail operator, rather than defaulting to highway movement. It's still just a theory of mine, and hard to compare the predictive value of the theory against the current British experience, but still worth the analysis.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: wouldn't "rejected" short haul opportunities (by a dominant rail carrier) be the "opportunities" that don't make money? If the big boys have decided that it's not worth the effort, why would an upstart want to jump in?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

FM: wouldn't "rejected" short haul opportunities (by a dominant rail carrier) be the "opportunities" that don't make money? If the big boys have decided that it's not worth the effort, why would an upstart want to jump in?

Murphy,

Isn't the history of business filled with examples of someone who found an opportunity that had been rejected by someone else and, using a little trial and error and innovation, turned it into a profitable venture? Besides, what isn't "profitable" for a big firm can often be profitable for a smaller outfit. Where is it written that ROI's just have to be 15% or more to justify investment? Who's to say that for some people a 5% ROI will be just fine? Some of those smaller outfits may have lower cost structures to start with. An owner-operator can make a profit at ventures that would be unprofitable to a company paying their employees to do the same thing. Granted, we probably wouldn't want these small outfits out on the heavily used mainlines, but they may fill a void on these less used lines (not limited to shortlines).

Finally, how many folks are out there who would jump at the chance to drive their own consists? The call of road is not limited to asphalt. I'll bet there are folks in this forum who would gladly PAY for the opportunity to run their own trains.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: I see your point. Where do I sign up?[:)]

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

FM: wouldn't "rejected" short haul opportunities (by a dominant rail carrier) be the "opportunities" that don't make money? If the big boys have decided that it's not worth the effort, why would an upstart want to jump in?

Judging by what's happening in Britain at the moment, EWS's overheads are too high which is why the smaller operators are able to take traffic which EWS dismissed as unprofitable. The Royal Mail contract is a case in point.

To answer your other question about inter-operability between Britain and France: for years before the Chunnel opened we've had through freight trains to the continent by train ferry. Up to 1980 there was also the "Night Ferry" overnight train from London Victoria to Paris Gare Du Nord which was formed of French sleeping cars with British day coaches added/detached at Dover.

I'm not sure what happens about crewing freight trains in France but British Eurostar crews work through to Paris and Brussels; likewise French and Belgian crews. During the winter Euorstars run through to certain French ski resorts and on summer Saturdays there's a return London - Avignon Eurostar trip but I dont know how far British crews work these. I suspect they only go as far as Paris. A few years ago when French crews went on strike the French Railways (SNCF) used Eurostar trains with British and Belgian crews to operate a limited service between Paris, Lille and Calais.

[daveklepper]

I think we would all appreciate knowing if British crews can work through freights into France . Would not French crews then be able to bring through Chunnel freights to London and maybe even Manchester and Scottland? Can you find out?

[Tulyar15]

I'll ask around a few people I know in the industry.

[owlsroost]

Freight cars (wagons) roam freely, but because the UK system has smaller clearances (structure/loading gauge) than mainland Europe, only wagons designed for the purpose can be used for UK <-> mainland Europe traffic.

As far as I know, freight trains from the UK are hauled to Frethun yard (Calais) by Class 92 electric locos, then moved on by SNCF using French motive power. When EWS starts open access operations in France, I assume the trains would change to class 66 diesel power at Frethun and be driven by French drivers directly employed by an EWS French subsiduary company. Whether this would be a unionised operation I don't know, but I'd guess it wouldn't be to start with, and almost certainly the employment terms and conditions wouldn't be the same as SNCF.

As a bit of background, the Eurostar passenger trains are run as a joint Eurostar UK/SNCF/SNCB operation, with ownership of the train fleet divided between the three partners but with maintenance concentrated in the UK. The trains were built by a UK/French/Belgian consortium too.

Tony

[mhurley87f]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

Freight cars (wagons) roam freely, but because the UK system has smaller clearances (structure/loading gauge) than mainland Europe, only wagons designed for the purpose can be used for UK <-> mainland Europe traffic.

As far as I know, freight trains from the UK are hauled to Frethun yard (Calais) by Class 92 electric locos, then moved on by SNCF using French motive power. When EWS starts open access operations in France, I assume the trains would change to class 66 diesel power at Frethun and be driven by French drivers directly employed by an EWS French subsiduary company. Whether this would be a unionised operation I don't know, but I'd guess it wouldn't be to start with, and almost certainly the employment terms and conditions wouldn't be the same as SNCF.

As a bit of background, the Eurostar passenger trains are run as a joint Eurostar UK/SNCF/SNCB operation, with ownership of the train fleet divided between the three partners but with maintenance concentrated in the UK. The trains were built by a UK/French/Belgian consortium too.

Tony

Tony,
Aren't British Airways and Air France a significant minority shareholder in the Eurostar operation? I'm sure that I've read that in Captain Deltic's column or another magazine.

[TH&B]

What is the language used by train crews / engineers through the Channel Tunnel? What about on through trains from England to France or Belgium? Does one have to be bilingual to be an engineer ?

[owlsroost]

If you look at page 4 of this PDF document - http://www.ctrl.co.uk/press/contract.asp?ID=4209 - it explains the (complex) structure of the Eurostar operation. National Express Group and British Airways have significant stakes in Eurostar (or rather in InterCapital and Regional Rail Ltd which manages Eurostar (UK) Limited).

From what I remember there have been attempts (led by the UK side I believe) to turn Eurostar into a proper free-standing company - mostly to streamline the decision making process - but I think SNCF/SNCB have resisted this so far.

Tony

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Does one have to be bilingual to be an engineer ?

To drive a Eurostar train - yes (in English and French - I don't think they have to know Flemish).

Driving for Eurostar is regarded as the pinnacle of train driving in the UK - not too surprising considering that you are in charge of a 20 car/800 tonne/16400 hp passenger train running at 186mph.

Tony

[owlsroost]

By the way, although some of my comments above might suggest I'm 'anti-French' etc - this isn't the case, it's just that there are cultural/historical differences between the UK and France that sometimes result in friction between the two countries (e.g. the on-going politcal battle in the EU over farming subsidies versus our EU budget rebate). It's certainly taking a lot longer to get open-access freight operations going in France compared to some other EU countries (e.g. Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Austria etc).

(But there is a certain irony in trains from Paris arriving at London Waterloo [:)] - type 'Battle of Waterloo' into Google if you don't get it).

Tony

[mhurley87f]

Let's not forget that when Sir Winston Churchill's State Funeral was at the planning stage (and he was very much alive at the time), he stipulated that his Funeral Train should leave from Waterloo, and not Paddington, the Terminus normally associated with services to Oxfordshire, on his last journey to Blenheim Palace.

When asked why, he was reported to have said, "Just to make De Gaulle look up at the name Waterloo." !!!

[Murphy Siding]

Tony: I don't think any of us took any of your comments as being anti-anything. What I do find quite interesting is learning a little about the "railroad culture" of other places. I understand that Britain is an open access system, I took it for granted that France was still a State-owned system. Is France, and are the other European countries moving to open access? Your post leads me to believe that some already are.

Thanks

[owlsroost]

My understanding is that current EU rules basically mandate the separation of rail infrastructure ownership/management from train operations - this is seen as an essential precursor to enable open-access to function properly. Also (I assume) the infrastructure owner is required to treat all operators fairly in respect of access rights, pricing etc.

As far as I'm aware, all the infrastructure organisations in the EU are still state-owned, as are most of the train operations i.e. in most countries they've just taken the existing integrated state-owned railway and split it in two. The difference is that the 'state' train operators aren't supposed to have a legal monopoly any more within their own countries. i.e. provided you meet the technical/safety requirements and the infrastructure organisation can accomodate your trains, you have the right to operate in that country.

The countries I mentioned are just the ones that I think have at least some 'open access' private-sector freight train operations (info from reading magazines etc) - it's not an exhaustive list.

Switzerland is not an EU member, but it's following the same principles and in fact SBB and BLS are significant 'open access' freight operators into other countries these days.

Tony

[Anonymous]

There is sometime a misunderstanding over the nature of EU direcrtives; they are quite broad and up to each member state to incorporate into thier own law how they wish. The open access directive is basically an accounting mechanism - at the bottom level there just has to be transparency between the track operation and the movement of trains thereon. It was the then Tory government who decided to foist this utter shambles in the name of "privitisation" by pursuing an ideologically driven structure upon the railway industry. I have no beef about working for a private company; it was just the way that it was "privatised" which drives me crackers.....

To answer a few points - Eurostar drivers are trained in all three languages - French being the driver. Anybody who works Ashford IECC must be able to speak French. This is due to classic line diversions and the plethora of signalboxes thereon.

2) In theory there is nothing to stop French drivers working trains thru the tunnel to London if they are passed competent in Brit rules. The way of operating is different in all countries - the EU is trying to work something on this - however it is already done with Eurostar so why not freight?

3) With the demise of railtrack all the infrastructure operators are basically in the hands of the state within the EU. The Brit government may try and persuade us that NR is private however it is not. It is funded by debt which is backed by the government. The private bit is to keep the Company off the National Balance Sheet so the Scots bloke in number 11 can keep smiling.

4) It will be immensely difficult for French crews to work direct from the tunnel direct to Manchester or the north; unless they are on very fast trains. Working hours agreements limits the amount of hours and driving time within a turn. HOWEVER (and this is semantic I know) there is nothing to stop a French company using French drivers under open access running trains from the tunnel to Manchester. Only they would have to be passed in British Rules and you would probabley require at least two/ three sets per trip.

5) Somebody in the French (and EU) parliament moaned that calling Waterloo...Waterloo was anti european and tried to campaign to get the name changed. However one of the French stations is Austerlitz after one of Boneys battles. They can change that one first......!

And if anybody states - "leave it entirely to the market" - errr.....no. That policy will not work in whatever sector you work in,

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: it was just the way that it was "privatised" which drives me crackers.....

Agreed ! (in particular the unseemly haste)

QUOTE: To answer a few points - Eurostar drivers are trained in all three languages - French being the driver. Anybody who works Ashford IECC must be able to speak French. This is due to classic line diversions and the plethora of signalboxes thereon.

Thanks for the clarification - it's been such a long time since I read about Eurostar driver training I couldn't remember if Flemish was included (Flemish - closely related to Dutch - and French are the two official languages in Belgium).

By the way, does this mean that French and Belgium Eurostar drivers are not required to speak English, or just so the people in Ashford can talk to their French counterparts?

(and for the non-UK readers, 'Ashford IECC' is the main signalling control centre in that part of south-east England, controlling both the classic lines in the area and the new high-speed line to London from the tunnel portal).

Just flicked through one of the magazines here, and there's a news piece about Connex (a private train operator) running the first open-access freight train in France recently, watched by 300 militant trade unionists who later set fire to the track apparently - the French riot police were also in attendance !!

Tony