British Railway Operations

[owlsroost]

Peterborough - Ely electrification makes little sense (other than as an occasional diversionary route), it's part of a largely east-west traffic axis which otherwise has virtually no electrification. Personally I'd go for Manchester - Preston - Blackpool and Glasgow - Edinburgh via Falkirk.

Tony

[daveklepper]

Now THAT is a positive step! Yeah team!

[Tulyar15]

Hopefully escalating oil prices will see more electrification. Whilst big projects like the East Coast Main Line electrification are unlikely, there's a lot of useful infilling schemes such as Leeds - York, Peterborough - Ely that could be done fairly cheaply and quickly which would increase productivity of electric trains.

[daveklepper]

Cost reductions are possible by increased productivity, faster turn around of trains for better use of both equipment and personel, but how realistic is this? US railroads have reduced costs mostly by turning away unprofitable business, through abandonment of branch and secondary lines and simply raising rates, but this is a freight railroad approach and not applicable to the UK. Actually, Beecham and all, it was done already about as far as possible. Reducing manning on trains is one way, but will the Unions permit this? How much of the subsidy for British railways is really a form of welfare? In some cases, costs can be reduced by turning lines over to local authorities and running them as light rail, and some of this has been done already. But isn't this just a drop in the bucket? My prediction: Oil prices in the UK are going to escalate greatly in the future, and the UK has been extremely slow in adopting energy saving highway transportation (Hybrid technology, NOT the rediculous fuel cell Hydrogen scam), so the costs of driving will go up, and the railways will increase their ticket prices and/or the popularity of the subsidization will increase.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Given that passenger is the main course for Network Rail, can it be said that the increased taxpayer output for Network Rail is mostly (if not all) predicated toward those passenger TOC's

Yes - apart from a very few places, the vast majority of trains are passenger so it's this that drives the need for capacity in the system. There are direct government grants available to companies to encourage a shift of freight from road to rail (to pay towards the cost of installing rail facilties and subsidise operating costs on environmental grounds e.g. fewer trucks through small villages etc). I don't know if there is any direct overall rail freight subsidy, but to be honest it would probably not be very significant in relation to the passenger subsidies.

In terms of passenger numbers and freight handling, I'd say the system is successful - to the point where the problem is lack of track capacity in some places, not lack of passengers. The main problem we have now (costs) is something the industry is taking seriously - the costs have to come down to ensure a long term future for the railways in the UK, the politicians won't fund the current level of subsidy for ever. We will probably never get back to the cost levels of British Rail (too much has changed in the meantime) but they have to be reduced to realistic levels.

Tony

[Tulyar15]

There's quite a lot of use of peat in Ireland. The Iri***urf Board (a state owned organisation) has an extensive network of narrow gauge railways with nearly 1000 miles of track and over 200 locos in use. These connect the peat bogs with the power stations. The more recent editions of the Oxford Publishing Co's Rail Atlas of Britain and Ireland show some of the larger networks. But they are in a state of constant flux, as peat extraction moves on, so do the tracks.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Where does Great Britain gets it's electricity from? Coal?Nuclear?Peat moss?

Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, some hydro power in Scotland, a small amount of wind power and imports of electricity from France (where it's mostly generated by nuclear energy). There is some use of peat in Ireland I believe.

Tony

[Anonymous]

Thanks.

I just wanted to know if it is possible to differentiate the subsidies Briti***axpayers shell out for the rail system between the passenger and freight aspects? Given that passenger is the main course for Network Rail, can it be said that the increased taxpayer output for Network Rail is mostly (if not all) predicated toward those passenger TOC's, while the increase in freight movements would suggest a net taxpayer gain (if indeed that freight has been taken off the highways or is new business that would not exist otherwise without the unique shipper access to the network)?

[Murphy Siding]

FM : Go for it ! [^]

What did you think of the idea of starting a dedicated post for discussion of you know what?

[Anonymous]

Murphy - let me know when I can weigh in on this.

[Murphy Siding]

On the whole, it appears to me,that maybe this wasn't a big improvement over the old system? The freight business is picking up, but the passenger busines is requiring a lot of subsidy? Some of the similarities to our system are kind of spooky. And the part about the first post-industrialized nation rings loud and clear in our country too.

On a different note: one post mentions adding electrified lines. Where does Great Britain gets it's electricity from? Coal?Nuclear?Peat moss?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Thanks for the update. Do I gather that the Network as a whole is subsidized and still costs the taxpayers money? How is this handled? Or does it result in ca***o the Government? Do local authorities subisidies the service providers for commuter services? I understant some contract operators also run bus services. Do they compete internally, running buses and trains on the same routes? Are tickets interchangeable? What about a journey requiring two service providers? Has freight continued to shift from rail to road or is a return to rail in progress?

ok - fvrom a signaller and to add.....

1) It does cost the taxpayers money - roughly 5 times from the "deeply inefficent" BR days. NR is funded thru debt which is backed by the government; the train operators with few exceptions are funded through either central or local government (local in this case bing the welsh and scots). Remember that Britain is very very centralized in terms of finance. 90% of revenue and expenditure is based around the centre as a rough rule of thumb.

There are various franchises which pay a premium to the government - examples being GNER; Thameslink and Gatwick Express. However if they go bust they can just renegotiate the terms and as the govt sets the track access charges and the timetlable basically it goes in one pocket and out of the other. As my fellow Brits have mentioned; there are open access operators - Heathrow Express and Hull Trains. However they are at the whim of Network Rail - the amount of paths they want is tailored somewhat.

2) Do Local Authorities provide financing.......yes, they do. But remember - local authorities in the UK (except as provided above) jare very dependant on the centre for their cash - it is not a federal system unlike North America.

3) Barring 2 exceptions (Sea Containers and John Laing) - all the train operator companies in the UK are in the hands of bus companies. And yes they do provide competing services. I could rant about that for a long, long time but it is very late at night here.

4) Tickets are interchangable - unless company specific which are usually book ahead and single toc journey tickets. The law states that there must be impartial retailing. There is a system (previously known as ORCATS) which divides the ratio of ca***aken by the number of trains provided by a particular operator on that stretch of line.

5) Freight - yes and no. Britain may have been the first industrialized nation and it is rapidly becoming the worlds first post industrialized nation. The amount of freight lifted has basically hovered around the 100m tonnes (UK) mark for a few years now - give or take 10%. The amount of freight carried by distance has increased rapidly - mostly as the logistical supply chain has got longer. I see as a signaller two freight trains per week.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Thanks for the update. Do I gather that the Network as a whole is subsidized and still costs the taxpayers money? How is this handled? Or does it result in ca***o the Government? Do local authorities subisidies the service providers for commuter services? I understant some contract operators also run bus services. Do they compete internally, running buses and trains on the same routes? Are tickets interchangeable? What about a journey requiring two service providers? Has freight continued to shift from rail to road or is a return to rail in progress?

Pretty much all the subsidy comes from central government i.e. the taxpayers (and it's a lot of money - billions of pounds).

Generally train tickets are valid on any operator's trains. Some operators also sell cheaper tickets only valid on their trains, but this is a customer choice issue i.e. you can choose to pay less and live with the restrictions.

Operators who run both bus and train services can choose to integrate them or not - it's a commercial decision (and mostly they don't) but in the big cities you can normally buy tickets valid for unlimited travel on buses and local train/underground services within the urban area e.g. Travelcards in London

Freight has been one of the success stories of privatisation (up about 50% since 1996), but rail still only carries about 11% of the freight in the UK.

Tony

[daveklepper]

Thanks. Mineta ought to take some lessons.

[owlsroost]

I'll try and explain...

1. 'Network Rail' owns, maintains and operates the infrastructure (tracks, stations, yards, signalling etc). This is (in all but name) a publicly owned company i.e. the UK government owns all the shares, and is the successor to Railtrack. Railtrack was a private company which went bankrupt (I was one of the many small shareholders in it).

2. Passenger train operations are run by private 'train operating companies' (TOC's) under franchise agreements i.e. the government offers a group of train services for tender, companies put in bids and eventually one is awarded the franchise. The size, length and style of these franchises varies a lot, but most of them involve some degree of subsidy from the UK taxpayer. There is a good list and map of TOC's here - http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/toc_list.html

There is also provision for 'open access' operators to apply for timetable paths to run trains on a purely commercial basis - there is only one actually doing this at present (Hull Trains), but there are other groups who are interested in this.

Most passenger stations are operated by a TOC (some of the really large stations are managed by Network Rail) but all sell tickets for other operators, and are legally required to be impartial when doing this.

3. Almost all passenger rolling stock is owned by leasing companies, and is usually 'dry' leased to the TOC's i.e. the TOC drives the trains and performs the routine maintenance, the leasing company is generally responsible for the heavy maintenance and refurbishment.

4. Freight trains are run on a commercial, 'open access' basis by various companies - EWS (mostly owned by CN) is the biggest - and freight is definitely one of the sucess stories of privatisation.

5. Timetable paths etc are agreed between the various TOC's, freight companies and Network Rail in an ongoing process (with the fallback of an independant Rail Regulator in the case of disputes), and then the train operators pay Network Rail for the use of the infrastructure. Network Rail controls the signalling system (equivalent of train despatching in the US) and hence the actual train running. There is a system of financial penalties/compensation if one TOC's trains delay another or Network Rail fouls up.

Generally the system works well (passenger numbers and freight traffic is well up compared to British Rail days) but is is costing the UK taxpayer a LOT more than before.

Hope that helps a little [:)]

Tony

[daveklepper]

Thanks for the update. Do I gather that the Network as a whole is subsidized and still costs the taxpayers money? How is this handled? Or does it result in ca***o the Government? Do local authorities subisidies the service providers for commuter services? I understant some contract operators also run bus services. Do they compete internally, running buses and trains on the same routes? Are tickets interchangeable? What about a journey requiring two service providers? Has freight continued to shift from rail to road or is a return to rail in progress?

[Tulyar15]

Basically the tracks are owned by Network Rail who also set the timetables and crew the signal boxes ("Control Towers" I think you call them in America) , which charges the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) for using them. The rolling stock was sold to Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCO's) who lease the stock to the TOC's.But there are over 20 TOC's and the system has proved unwieldy. The thinking behind privitisation was a mish mash of different ideas. The purpose of separating infrastructure from operations was to try and provide a level playing field for competition. But when the last Conservative government found that no-one wanted to buy the TOC's for fear of having to face competition from "open access" operators it gave guarantees to the buyers of TOC's to limit compeition. (The passenger TOC's are effectively management contracts under which bidders bid to provide a certain minimum service for a specified period of years. The freight TOC's have more commercial freedom.) So very few open access operators have come along so far, and only one that operates passenger trains though another is applying for a licence to operate passenger trains.

The fragmentation of the British Rail network has pushed up costs as each company in the chain adds its profit margin on to the charges which are passed down the line (pun intended!) to the TOC's. Whilst the ROSCO's have invested in some new trains for the larger TOC's it is felt that their charges for older trains are excessive. As an example the 2-car class 158 diesel rail cars which British Rail bought in 1990 for £1million apiece are rented at about £500,000 per annum. In the case of Wales and Borders, whose current franchise holder has a 15 year franchise in place, will during the life of their franchise pay a total of £7.5 million for their class 158 DMU's which for trains that cost £1million is scandalous.

Ed Burkhardt was off the opinion that the access charges charged by Railtrack (the original infrasctuure owner, which has been replace by the 'not for profit' Network Rail) were excessive but since his departure the issue seems to have gone off the boil.

At this point I'd like to kill a popular myth. There's a widespread belief that the separation of infrasctructure and operations was forced on the UK by Brussels. Not so. EU directive 1991/440 merely states that state owned rail comapnies should produce separate accounts for infrasctructure and operations; it does not say anything about having to separate ownership.

The present Labour government seems to be trying to change things graduall rather than in one big bang. Railtrack has been effectively re-nationalised through the back door (Despite widespread support for renationalising the railways it remains a political no go area). The TOC's are being merged as franchises come up for renewal. But because of the greater cost of maintain the fragmented network there are widespread fears of line closures, particularly in SW England were the merger of the Wessex and Great Western TOC's may lead to service cuts. In Scotland and Wales the picture is more rosy as the devolved Parliaments there are funding a number of rail re-openings. They're even electrifying a few lines in Scotland, something that privitisation has killed in the rest of Britain.

In Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Railways remain as a vertical integrated state owned company, as is its neighbour Iarnrod Eireann, the Irish Republic's state owned system. After years of under investment the NI Parliament has authorised modernisation of the remaining network; a contrast to the 1950's and 1960's when it's decision to axe a number of cross border lines led to bad feelings in the Republic. The Dublin government has always supported its rail network, starting dieselisation several years before Britain. At the present time it has a modern fleet of GM built locos, a growing suburban electric network in Dublin and is buying new DMU's for rural passenger services and some inter city routes.

[Murphy Siding]

I understand how the British have privatized their system now. The tracks are owned by one entity, and the trains by another. Can anyone explain, in layman's terms how this actually works? and is it working? Perhaps some of our forum members from over there could enlighten us. (Future Model-throttle back for a bit on this one-I know you're not British[:)]) Thanks