Grouping in to "Big Four" Railway Companies - Yes or No?

[365fenman]

Bearing in mind the chat on this forum about the pros and cons of railway renationalisation, I wanted to ask a similar question - would you be in favour of a return to the Big Four system? By this I mean reverting to the structure of the 1920s and 30s (GWR, LMS, LNER and Southern).

I am envisaging replacing TOCs, Network Rail and ROSCOs with four companies, spilt geographically, to own the tracks, own the trains and run them. For the sake of this poll, let's assume they don't build trains or run hotels etc. as they used to.

I for one think this would be a good idea. For one thing, it would eliminate the short-termism associated with having short TOC contracts, which aren't long enough to promote long-term investment. It would also provide a single source of accountability, i.e. when things go wrong it would be clear where the buck stops. Moreover, it would prevent ROSCOs from having monopolies on trains and overcharging TOCs for trains whose value have already been written off - the cost of which currently is subsidised by the taxpayer.

 

[aylesbury]

Worth a try it could work as long as inter company services are allowed and freight could be a problem will they come under each company?

 

[goblinuser]

No because the change would be wasteful. The infrastructure has been set up over the years outside the boundaries of 4 different companies, so it's pointless at this stage to re group like that.
It would make sense to have one company which is government owned set up to take over and run everything, building upon the current state of the railways.

 

[DarloRich]

Bearing in mind the chat on this forum about the pros and cons of railway renationalisation, I wanted to ask a similar question - would you be in favour of a return to the Big Four system? By this I mean reverting to the structure of the 1920s and 30s (GWR, LMS, LNER and Southern).

I am envisaging replacing TOCs, Network Rail and ROSCOs with four companies, spilt geographically, to own the tracks, own the trains and run them. For the sake of this poll, let's assume they don't build trains or run hotels etc. as they used to.

I for one think this would be a good idea. For one thing, it would eliminate the short-termism associated with having short TOC contracts, which aren't long enough to promote long-term investment. It would also provide a single source of accountability, i.e. when things go wrong it would be clear where the buck stops. Moreover, it would prevent ROSCOs from having monopolies on trains and overcharging TOCs for trains whose value have already been written off - the cost of which currently is subsidised by the taxpayer.

I think you ought to sharpen up your political antennae. There is no way Scotland or Wales will relinquish control so you are up to 6 regions with all of the hassle that sorting out cross border travel will bring. How is Cross Country going to work or VTEC/VTWC going to operate or long distance freight?

You also need to have a think about the power your idea would hand back to the railway suppliers. Rather than one contract for your raw materials ( and a long term fixed price based on high volume) you have 4 contracts at different rates, for differing lengths and for differing materials. Endless opportunity to drive the price up for key items and equipment and/or vast under utilisation of that equipment when you have to buy 4 of everything! I know this is very boring compared to the colour of paint on a train but of much more importance.

PS god knows how you propose to serve the parts of the country without a helpful ballast quarry or steel works!

 

[Llanigraham]

No, simply because it is just not practicable!

 

[meolebrace]

No...prices would go up even more

 

[PeterC]

To quote an old saying "If I was going there I wouldn't start from here"

It would have been an option up to the Beeching closures. After that BR was being hammered into a single system.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

No. I don't think that's the solution. The current system is not the solution in my opinion, but neither is Big 4-ing it. I think keeping the current franchise system but making all the franchises DOR-owned/controlled (a la East Coast/South Eastern Trains), with ≥10 year franchises, but hiring in competent industry managers, would be the least bad option.

 

[365fenman]

I think you ought to sharpen up your political antennae. There is no way Scotland or Wales will relinquish control so you are up to 6 regions with all of the hassle that sorting out cross border travel will bring. How is Cross Country going to work or VTEC/VTWC going to operate or long distance freight?

How much influence exactly does the Welsh assembly have over setting the Wales franchise? Moreover, the each of the companies could be set up with different shareholders, for example, the Scottish government. Something like the Scottish Assembly having a 10-20% stake in LMS and LNER.

Looking at the current TOCs, most could be placed in to one of the big four, with the exception of CrossCountry, Thameslink, Transpennine, Northern and Scotrail. With some degree of regulation, train services that cross different regions could surely be run. For example, CrossCountry could be split between LNER and LMS and both of these could pay to use GWR's tracks. With regulation, this could be done sensibly, without the track-owning company bleeding the operating company dry. Most of Northern and Scotrail could be split between LMS and LNER.

As for freight, that too could be operated by one of the big four, with track sharing arrangements in place where necessary.

I'm pretty sure track sharing and happened during the days of the big four before Beeching...

 

[DarloRich]

How much influence exactly does the Welsh assembly have over setting the Wales franchise? Moreover, the each of the companies could be set up with different shareholders, for example, the Scottish government. Something like the Scottish Assembly having a 10-20% stake in LMS and LNER.

Looking at the current TOCs, most could be placed in to one of the big four, with the exception of CrossCountry, Thameslink, Transpennine, Northern and Scotrail. With some degree of regulation, train services that cross different regions could surely be run. For example, CrossCountry could be split between LNER and LMS and both of these could pay to use GWR's tracks. With regulation, this could be done sensibly, without the track-owning company bleeding the operating company dry. Most of Northern and Scotrail could be split between LMS and LNER.

As for freight, that too could be operated by one of the big four, with track sharing arrangements in place where necessary.

I'm pretty sure track sharing and happened during the days of the big four before Beeching...

if only it were that simple on either the boundaries of the regions or the operation of trains. I repeat: There is no way Scotland or Wales would agree to not having their own region. Scotland most certainly would not. Why do you think there is an alliance in Scotland?