Discussion:
In praise of open access competition
Add Reply
Recliner
2024-12-18 02:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680

East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways

Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.

But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.

The chancellor Rachel Reeves and the new transport secretary Heidi
Alexander (the fifth one in as many years) must take note of this model if
they want to avoid a future of soaring subsidies and flatlining passenger
numbers. It should be encouraged and rolled out across Britain’s intercity
network.

Next year ministers will create the state-run Great British Railways (GBR)
and say they want to see open access competition continue “where it adds
value”. The new evidence shows that it doesn’t just do this on a
significant scale, it also delivers a critical competitive discipline that
can help prevent any risk of GBR sliding into financial and sector decline.

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) statistics show that where intercity
trains don’t compete for passengers they are expensive, require big
subsidies, have struggled to get their finances and passengers back since
Covid and endure poor passenger satisfaction.

Overall, rail income and journeys are down. The sector has not recovered to
pre-Covid levels, with one important exception — the East Coast Main Line
where real on-track competition delivers for customers. The line’s
state-run main operator, LNER, is the only intercity service that has been
able to increase its number of passenger journeys.

LNER had 21.2 million passengers in 2019-20 and 24.2 million in 2023-24. On
the rival West Coast Main Line, the monopoly operator, Avanti, is still
struggling to get passengers back. In 2019-20 it carried 37.5 million but
in 2023-24 only 32.8 million. On the Great Western Main Line numbers were
82.6 million in 2023-24, down from 97 million in 2019-20.

LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government. In
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year this fell to
£39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if its growth continues,
alongside its competitors, then it can become subsidy free.

This model gives ministers a huge opportunity to get GBR right. Let’s hope
they take it.

Tony Lodge is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies
Tweed
2024-12-18 07:08:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
The chancellor Rachel Reeves and the new transport secretary Heidi
Alexander (the fifth one in as many years) must take note of this model if
they want to avoid a future of soaring subsidies and flatlining passenger
numbers. It should be encouraged and rolled out across Britain’s intercity
network.
Next year ministers will create the state-run Great British Railways (GBR)
and say they want to see open access competition continue “where it adds
value”. The new evidence shows that it doesn’t just do this on a
significant scale, it also delivers a critical competitive discipline that
can help prevent any risk of GBR sliding into financial and sector decline.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) statistics show that where intercity
trains don’t compete for passengers they are expensive, require big
subsidies, have struggled to get their finances and passengers back since
Covid and endure poor passenger satisfaction.
Overall, rail income and journeys are down. The sector has not recovered to
pre-Covid levels, with one important exception — the East Coast Main Line
where real on-track competition delivers for customers. The line’s
state-run main operator, LNER, is the only intercity service that has been
able to increase its number of passenger journeys.
LNER had 21.2 million passengers in 2019-20 and 24.2 million in 2023-24. On
the rival West Coast Main Line, the monopoly operator, Avanti, is still
struggling to get passengers back. In 2019-20 it carried 37.5 million but
in 2023-24 only 32.8 million. On the Great Western Main Line numbers were
82.6 million in 2023-24, down from 97 million in 2019-20.
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government. In
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year this fell to
£39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if its growth continues,
alongside its competitors, then it can become subsidy free.
This model gives ministers a huge opportunity to get GBR right. Let’s hope
they take it.
Tony Lodge is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Certes
2024-12-18 10:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
<snip description of open access>
Post by Tweed
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Are we conflating correlation with causation here? Perhaps the ECML is
a relatively easy service to run, which both improves the results of the
state-owned main operator and attracts private enterprise rivals.
Theo
2024-12-18 10:32:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Certes
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
<snip description of open access>
Post by Tweed
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Are we conflating correlation with causation here? Perhaps the ECML is
a relatively easy service to run, which both improves the results of the
state-owned main operator and attracts private enterprise rivals.
Yes, I think the ECML is easier to run than the WCML - less freight,
formerly less 'moderation of competition', no special requirements for
rolling stock. Also two of the three open access operators aren't actually
offering competition - LNER and its predecessors were never very interested
in Hull or Sunderland, which is why HT and GC exist. I don't think LNER has
improved its offering from Doncaster or Darlington which are the only places
they do compete with those two.

Has Lumo had much effect on LNER?

Theo
Recliner
2024-12-18 13:55:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Theo
Post by Certes
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
<snip description of open access>
Post by Tweed
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Are we conflating correlation with causation here? Perhaps the ECML is
a relatively easy service to run, which both improves the results of the
state-owned main operator and attracts private enterprise rivals.
Yes, I think the ECML is easier to run than the WCML - less freight,
formerly less 'moderation of competition', no special requirements for
rolling stock. Also two of the three open access operators aren't actually
offering competition - LNER and its predecessors were never very interested
in Hull or Sunderland, which is why HT and GC exist. I don't think LNER has
improved its offering from Doncaster or Darlington which are the only places
they do compete with those two.
Traffic has recovered much better on the ECML post-Covid than on the other mainlines. That can't be because it's easier
to operate.
Post by Theo
Has Lumo had much effect on LNER?
Both are growing.
Tweed
2024-12-18 14:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Theo
Post by Certes
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
<snip description of open access>
Post by Tweed
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Are we conflating correlation with causation here? Perhaps the ECML is
a relatively easy service to run, which both improves the results of the
state-owned main operator and attracts private enterprise rivals.
Yes, I think the ECML is easier to run than the WCML - less freight,
formerly less 'moderation of competition', no special requirements for
rolling stock. Also two of the three open access operators aren't actually
offering competition - LNER and its predecessors were never very interested
in Hull or Sunderland, which is why HT and GC exist. I don't think LNER has
improved its offering from Doncaster or Darlington which are the only places
they do compete with those two.
Traffic has recovered much better on the ECML post-Covid than on the
other mainlines. That can't be because it's easier
to operate.
Post by Theo
Has Lumo had much effect on LNER?
Both are growing.
ECML have less commuter traffic.
ECML go between two tourist magnets, especially for overseas tourists.
Avanti haven’t managed to staff their service properly.
EMR are hobbled by constant weekend closures because of electrification
Don’t know about GWR
Recliner
2024-12-18 16:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by Theo
Post by Certes
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
<snip description of open access>
Post by Tweed
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Are we conflating correlation with causation here? Perhaps the ECML is
a relatively easy service to run, which both improves the results of the
state-owned main operator and attracts private enterprise rivals.
Yes, I think the ECML is easier to run than the WCML - less freight,
formerly less 'moderation of competition', no special requirements for
rolling stock. Also two of the three open access operators aren't actually
offering competition - LNER and its predecessors were never very interested
in Hull or Sunderland, which is why HT and GC exist. I don't think LNER has
improved its offering from Doncaster or Darlington which are the only places
they do compete with those two.
Traffic has recovered much better on the ECML post-Covid than on the
other mainlines. That can't be because it's easier
to operate.
Post by Theo
Has Lumo had much effect on LNER?
Both are growing.
ECML have less commuter traffic.
ECML go between two tourist magnets, especially for overseas tourists.
Avanti haven’t managed to staff their service properly.
EMR are hobbled by constant weekend closures because of electrification
Don’t know about GWR
Yes, the ECML has benefited from having more leisure and less business
traffic than other main lines, and it’s the leisure traffic that has
recovered strongly.
ColinR
2024-12-18 21:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by Theo
Post by Certes
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
<snip description of open access>
Post by Tweed
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Are we conflating correlation with causation here? Perhaps the ECML is
a relatively easy service to run, which both improves the results of the
state-owned main operator and attracts private enterprise rivals.
Yes, I think the ECML is easier to run than the WCML - less freight,
formerly less 'moderation of competition', no special requirements for
rolling stock. Also two of the three open access operators aren't actually
offering competition - LNER and its predecessors were never very interested
in Hull or Sunderland, which is why HT and GC exist. I don't think LNER has
improved its offering from Doncaster or Darlington which are the only places
they do compete with those two.
Traffic has recovered much better on the ECML post-Covid than on the
other mainlines. That can't be because it's easier
to operate.
Post by Theo
Has Lumo had much effect on LNER?
Both are growing.
ECML have less commuter traffic.
ECML go between two tourist magnets, especially for overseas tourists.
Avanti haven’t managed to staff their service properly.
EMR are hobbled by constant weekend closures because of electrification
Don’t know about GWR
Yes, the ECML has benefited from having more leisure and less business
traffic than other main lines, and it’s the leisure traffic that has
recovered strongly.
And the brilliant advertising with the puppet - NOT!
--
Colin
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2024-12-21 12:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
ECML have less commuter traffic.
ECML go between two tourist magnets, especially for overseas tourists.
Avanti haven’t managed to staff their service properly.
EMR are hobbled by constant weekend closures because of electrification
Don’t know about GWR
Almost the entire gWr service can be characterised as an outer-suburban
commuter stopping service.
Roland Perry
2024-12-18 12:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Certes
Post by Tweed
It’s a bit of a leap to say that LNER’s alleged success is down to open
access competition. You could equally well argue that it was one of the
earliest nationalised TOCs and is therefore a triumph of state ownership.
Are we conflating correlation with causation here? Perhaps the ECML is
a relatively easy service to run,
It is, and despite competition from the WCML has a pretty much captive
audience for north-south transport of half the country's population.
With very few of those pesky short-distance commuters to pander to.
Post by Certes
which both improves the results of the state-owned main operator and
attracts private enterprise rivals.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2024-12-18 12:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government. In
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year this fell to
£39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if its growth continues,
alongside its competitors, then it can become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2024-12-18 14:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government. In
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year this fell to
£39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if its growth continues,
alongside its competitors, then it can become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit. And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km than the WCML.
Roland Perry
2024-12-18 20:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government. In
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year this fell to
£39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if its growth continues,
alongside its competitors, then it can become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
Post by Recliner
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2024-12-18 21:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government. In
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year this fell to
£39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if its growth continues,
alongside its competitors, then it can become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-statistical-release-202324.pdf
Roland Perry
2024-12-19 05:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.

LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.

However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.

Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2024-12-19 09:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then. In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really. Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
Tweed
2024-12-19 10:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then. In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really. Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
Regional anything generally gets a subsidy. Rural roads benefit from the
taxes paid by urban motorists who infrequently use the rural roads. But
it’s jolly useful that they are there.
Roland Perry
2024-12-20 10:03:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then.
They did (proper calculations).

For example East Coast broke even, in its final operating year, and
VTEC started off requiring a 1.1p subsidy (SWT, on the other hand, made
3.4p overall profit that year). The previous year EC made 0.6p profit,
but as I said at the time, they somewhat fiddled the books by adjusting
their premium year-on-year to make it look like they were exactly
breaking even.

National Express East Coast in their final year (which is also the
oldest figures I have easily to hand) made 1.3p profit

{All numbers are per-passenger-mile, nowadays they are quoted pp-km}
Post by Recliner
In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really.
Yes, really! If the railways were run as a single, level playing field,
then all lines would be subsidised by 6.9p, which would result in the
fares on all the TOCs to the left of the blue line to fall, and fares on
all the TOCs to the right of the blue line to increase.
Post by Recliner
Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2024-12-20 12:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then.
They did (proper calculations).
For example East Coast broke even, in its final operating year, and
VTEC started off requiring a 1.1p subsidy (SWT, on the other hand, made
3.4p overall profit that year). The previous year EC made 0.6p profit,
but as I said at the time, they somewhat fiddled the books by adjusting
their premium year-on-year to make it look like they were exactly
breaking even.
The premiums that some TOCs paid were not a measure of bottom line profits.
Changing the premium profile has no effect on bottom line profits. So your
figures are not a measure of the profitability of those routes, just the
operating surplus or deficit of TOCs.
Post by Roland Perry
National Express East Coast in their final year (which is also the
oldest figures I have easily to hand) made 1.3p profit
{All numbers are per-passenger-mile, nowadays they are quoted pp-km}
Do those calculations take into account the DfT’s direct grants to NR?
Most such calculations don’t, and it’s clear that your figures don’t. So
those ‘profits’ are actually just operating surpluses at the TOC level, not
true bottom-line profits at the whole systems level.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really.
Yes, really! If the railways were run as a single, level playing field,
then all lines would be subsidised by 6.9p, which would result in the
fares on all the TOCs to the left of the blue line to fall, and fares on
all the TOCs to the right of the blue line to increase.
But they’re not. The fact is that almost all operators lose money at the
bottom line, with (at any one time) perhaps one or two that serve London
achieving a very small profit margin. Those one or two have varied over
time.

Freight operators as a whole also lose money, but one or two do manage to
make a small profit.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it. Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional
railways, and inherently heavily loss-making.
Roland Perry
2024-12-23 09:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:14:50 +0000, Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then.
They did (proper calculations).
For example East Coast broke even, in its final operating year, and
VTEC started off requiring a 1.1p subsidy (SWT, on the other hand, made
3.4p overall profit that year). The previous year EC made 0.6p profit,
but as I said at the time, they somewhat fiddled the books by adjusting
their premium year-on-year to make it look like they were exactly
breaking even.
The premiums that some TOCs paid were not a measure of bottom line profits.
Who said they were? The premiums were a commitment to pay lump sums
[usually increasing year-on-year] to the government, and TOCs had to
calculate (and in some cases miscalculated) what level of bid they could
afford to put in.

The one exception was EC, which as I said at the time, and quoted
earlier in this thread, had premiums-with-hindsight which changed from
year to year based on the *actual* operating profits.
Post by Recliner
Changing the premium profile has no effect on bottom line profits.
It does for individual TCs, because the premium is one of the "costs" of
running the business.
Post by Recliner
So your figures are not a measure of the profitability of those routes,
just the operating surplus or deficit of TOCs.
No, that's not what they are.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
National Express East Coast in their final year (which is also the
oldest figures I have easily to hand) made 1.3p profit
{All numbers are per-passenger-mile, nowadays they are quoted pp-km}
Do those calculations take into account the DfT’s direct grants to NR?
Yes! The same spreadsheets have the (higher of course) operating profits
separately.
Post by Recliner
Most such calculations don’t, and it’s clear that your figures don’t.
It's absolutely clear that mine do.
Post by Recliner
So those ‘profits’ are actually just operating surpluses at the TOC
level, not true bottom-line profits at the whole systems level.
No, they are the what-you-call whole systems level.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really.
Yes, really! If the railways were run as a single, level playing field,
then all lines would be subsidised by 6.9p, which would result in the
fares on all the TOCs to the left of the blue line to fall, and fares on
all the TOCs to the right of the blue line to increase.
But they’re not. The fact is that almost all operators lose money at the
bottom line, with (at any one time) perhaps one or two that serve London
achieving a very small profit margin. Those one or two have varied over
time.
I don't think I can expect to clear up this oft-repeated
misunderstanding of yours by anything I can usefully write here. I've
tried so many times before, to no effect.

Suffice to say, several commuter TOCs in the SE (plus the EMCL) made
significant operation profits, were then used to subsidise famously
loss-making TOCs. As a whole, the government *still* had to inject a
substantial subsidy of its own, and therefore compared to the neutral
point of eg 6.9p above, those SE commuter TOCs were even more
*relatively* profit making.
Post by Recliner
Freight operators as a whole also lose money, but one or two do manage to
make a small profit.
We can talk about freight once you've unmuddled yourself about passenger
TOCs.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern. A line like MML only
"serves London" in the sense that has a terminus there, the trains
barely served Bedford, let alone any commuter traffic further south.
Ditto ECML (where the closest to London all but a handful of
pickup/setdowns at Stevenage served was Peterborough, which is
geographically north of Birmingham).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2024-12-23 17:25:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:14:50 +0000, Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then.
They did (proper calculations).
For example East Coast broke even, in its final operating year, and
VTEC started off requiring a 1.1p subsidy (SWT, on the other hand, made
3.4p overall profit that year). The previous year EC made 0.6p profit,
but as I said at the time, they somewhat fiddled the books by adjusting
their premium year-on-year to make it look like they were exactly
breaking even.
The premiums that some TOCs paid were not a measure of bottom line profits.
Who said they were? The premiums were a commitment to pay lump sums
[usually increasing year-on-year] to the government, and TOCs had to
calculate (and in some cases miscalculated) what level of bid they could
afford to put in.
The one exception was EC, which as I said at the time, and quoted
earlier in this thread, had premiums-with-hindsight which changed from
year to year based on the *actual* operating profits.
Yes, it simply paid its surplus operating profit to its owner. That’s what
subsidiaries normally do.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Changing the premium profile has no effect on bottom line profits.
It does for individual TCs, because the premium is one of the "costs" of
running the business.
I’m consistently talking about the profitability of the line, which you
simply don’t understand.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
So your figures are not a measure of the profitability of those routes,
just the operating surplus or deficit of TOCs.
No, that's not what they are.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
National Express East Coast in their final year (which is also the
oldest figures I have easily to hand) made 1.3p profit
{All numbers are per-passenger-mile, nowadays they are quoted pp-km}
Do those calculations take into account the DfT’s direct grants to NR?
Yes! The same spreadsheets have the (higher of course) operating profits
separately.
Post by Recliner
Most such calculations don’t, and it’s clear that your figures don’t.
It's absolutely clear that mine do.
So why do you keep harping on about TOC premiums?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
So those ‘profits’ are actually just operating surpluses at the TOC
level, not true bottom-line profits at the whole systems level.
No, they are the what-you-call whole systems level.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really.
Yes, really! If the railways were run as a single, level playing field,
then all lines would be subsidised by 6.9p, which would result in the
fares on all the TOCs to the left of the blue line to fall, and fares on
all the TOCs to the right of the blue line to increase.
But they’re not. The fact is that almost all operators lose money at the
bottom line, with (at any one time) perhaps one or two that serve London
achieving a very small profit margin. Those one or two have varied over
time.
I don't think I can expect to clear up this oft-repeated
misunderstanding of yours by anything I can usefully write here. I've
tried so many times before, to no effect.
Because I simply don’t believe you. Provide a reliable reference, not your
dim memories.
Post by Roland Perry
Suffice to say, several commuter TOCs in the SE (plus the EMCL) made
significant operation profits, were then used to subsidise famously
loss-making TOCs.
But they seldom made a bottom line profit.
Post by Roland Perry
As a whole, the government *still* had to inject a
substantial subsidy of its own, and therefore compared to the neutral
point of eg 6.9p above, those SE commuter TOCs were even more
*relatively* profit making.
No, just less loss-making.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Freight operators as a whole also lose money, but one or two do manage to
make a small profit.
We can talk about freight once you've unmuddled yourself about passenger
TOCs.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Yet again, your memory is faulty. I don’t think you paid any attention to
BR’s successful rail sectorisation structure.
Post by Roland Perry
A line like MML only
"serves London" in the sense that has a terminus there, the trains
barely served Bedford, let alone any commuter traffic further south.
It’s an intercity line, not a commuter line.
Post by Roland Perry
Ditto ECML (where the closest to London all but a handful of
pickup/setdowns at Stevenage served was Peterborough, which is
geographically north of Birmingham).
So you actually think their long distance services into London aren’t their
main revenue generators? Really?
Roland Perry
2024-12-25 11:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <P1haP.47$***@fx09.ams1>, at 17:25:03 on Mon, 23 Dec 2024,
Recliner <***@gmail.com> remarked:

[much misconception and muddle]

I'll have time to devote to explaining why, later in the week.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2024-12-23 17:46:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:14:50 +0000, Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then.
They did (proper calculations).
For example East Coast broke even, in its final operating year, and
VTEC started off requiring a 1.1p subsidy (SWT, on the other hand, made
3.4p overall profit that year). The previous year EC made 0.6p profit,
but as I said at the time, they somewhat fiddled the books by adjusting
their premium year-on-year to make it look like they were exactly
breaking even.
The premiums that some TOCs paid were not a measure of bottom line profits.
Who said they were? The premiums were a commitment to pay lump sums
[usually increasing year-on-year] to the government, and TOCs had to
calculate (and in some cases miscalculated) what level of bid they could
afford to put in.
The one exception was EC, which as I said at the time, and quoted
earlier in this thread, had premiums-with-hindsight which changed from
year to year based on the *actual* operating profits.
Yes, it simply paid its surplus operating profit to its owner. That’s what
subsidiaries normally do.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Changing the premium profile has no effect on bottom line profits.
It does for individual TCs, because the premium is one of the "costs" of
running the business.
I’m consistently talking about the profitability of the line, which you
simply don’t understand.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
So your figures are not a measure of the profitability of those routes,
just the operating surplus or deficit of TOCs.
No, that's not what they are.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
National Express East Coast in their final year (which is also the
oldest figures I have easily to hand) made 1.3p profit
{All numbers are per-passenger-mile, nowadays they are quoted pp-km}
Do those calculations take into account the DfT’s direct grants to NR?
Yes! The same spreadsheets have the (higher of course) operating profits
separately.
Post by Recliner
Most such calculations don’t, and it’s clear that your figures don’t.
It's absolutely clear that mine do.
So why do you keep harping on about TOC premiums?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
So those ‘profits’ are actually just operating surpluses at the TOC
level, not true bottom-line profits at the whole systems level.
No, they are the what-you-call whole systems level.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really.
Yes, really! If the railways were run as a single, level playing field,
then all lines would be subsidised by 6.9p, which would result in the
fares on all the TOCs to the left of the blue line to fall, and fares on
all the TOCs to the right of the blue line to increase.
But they’re not. The fact is that almost all operators lose money at the
bottom line, with (at any one time) perhaps one or two that serve London
achieving a very small profit margin. Those one or two have varied over
time.
I don't think I can expect to clear up this oft-repeated
misunderstanding of yours by anything I can usefully write here. I've
tried so many times before, to no effect.
Because I simply don’t believe you. Provide a reliable reference, not your
dim memories.
Post by Roland Perry
Suffice to say, several commuter TOCs in the SE (plus the EMCL) made
significant operation profits, were then used to subsidise famously
loss-making TOCs.
But they seldom made a bottom line profit.
Post by Roland Perry
As a whole, the government *still* had to inject a
substantial subsidy of its own, and therefore compared to the neutral
point of eg 6.9p above, those SE commuter TOCs were even more
*relatively* profit making.
No, just less loss-making.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Freight operators as a whole also lose money, but one or two do manage to
make a small profit.
We can talk about freight once you've unmuddled yourself about passenger
TOCs.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Yet again, your memory is faulty. I don’t think you paid any attention to
BR’s successful rail sectorisation structure.
Post by Roland Perry
A line like MML only
"serves London" in the sense that has a terminus there, the trains
barely served Bedford, let alone any commuter traffic further south.
It’s an intercity line, not a commuter line.
Post by Roland Perry
Ditto ECML (where the closest to London all but a handful of
pickup/setdowns at Stevenage served was Peterborough, which is
geographically north of Birmingham).
So you actually think their long distance services into London aren’t their
main revenue generators? Really?
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2024-12-23 18:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:14:50 +0000, Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then.
They did (proper calculations).
For example East Coast broke even, in its final operating year, and
VTEC started off requiring a 1.1p subsidy (SWT, on the other hand, made
3.4p overall profit that year). The previous year EC made 0.6p profit,
but as I said at the time, they somewhat fiddled the books by adjusting
their premium year-on-year to make it look like they were exactly
breaking even.
The premiums that some TOCs paid were not a measure of bottom line profits.
Who said they were? The premiums were a commitment to pay lump sums
[usually increasing year-on-year] to the government, and TOCs had to
calculate (and in some cases miscalculated) what level of bid they could
afford to put in.
The one exception was EC, which as I said at the time, and quoted
earlier in this thread, had premiums-with-hindsight which changed from
year to year based on the *actual* operating profits.
Post by Recliner
Changing the premium profile has no effect on bottom line profits.
It does for individual TCs, because the premium is one of the "costs" of
running the business.
Post by Recliner
So your figures are not a measure of the profitability of those routes,
just the operating surplus or deficit of TOCs.
No, that's not what they are.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
National Express East Coast in their final year (which is also the
oldest figures I have easily to hand) made 1.3p profit
{All numbers are per-passenger-mile, nowadays they are quoted pp-km}
Do those calculations take into account the DfT’s direct grants to NR?
Yes! The same spreadsheets have the (higher of course) operating profits
separately.
Post by Recliner
Most such calculations don’t, and it’s clear that your figures don’t.
It's absolutely clear that mine do.
Post by Recliner
So those ‘profits’ are actually just operating surpluses at the TOC
level, not true bottom-line profits at the whole systems level.
No, they are the what-you-call whole systems level.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really.
Yes, really! If the railways were run as a single, level playing field,
then all lines would be subsidised by 6.9p, which would result in the
fares on all the TOCs to the left of the blue line to fall, and fares on
all the TOCs to the right of the blue line to increase.
But they’re not. The fact is that almost all operators lose money at the
bottom line, with (at any one time) perhaps one or two that serve London
achieving a very small profit margin. Those one or two have varied over
time.
I don't think I can expect to clear up this oft-repeated
misunderstanding of yours by anything I can usefully write here. I've
tried so many times before, to no effect.
Suffice to say, several commuter TOCs in the SE (plus the EMCL) made
significant operation profits, were then used to subsidise famously
loss-making TOCs. As a whole, the government *still* had to inject a
substantial subsidy of its own, and therefore compared to the neutral
point of eg 6.9p above, those SE commuter TOCs were even more
*relatively* profit making.
Post by Recliner
Freight operators as a whole also lose money, but one or two do manage to
make a small profit.
We can talk about freight once you've unmuddled yourself about passenger
TOCs.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.

That very clearly included the majority of trains in Scotland, Wales and
The North.
Certes
2024-12-23 20:04:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:14:50 +0000, Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
LNER is also eating into the subsidy it requires from government.
2021-22 it needed £288 million from the taxpayer but last year
this fell to £39 million. LNER will soon come under GBR and if
its growth continues, alongside its competitors, then it can
become subsidy free.
Pre-Covid it used to make a profit, and pay a substantial premium.
Not a bottom-line profit.
What do you mean by "bottom line"? Even when OLR first time round took
over the ECML they crowed about how they were still paying a prmium.
The bottom line figure takes into account the DfT’s direct subsidy to NR.
That exceeded the profit margin of the TOC.
But not OLR when it was first the operator of the ECML. It was still
making a profit even when that was taken into account.
No, I don’t think it was. LNER was certainly making an operating surplus,
as was VTEC, but probably only because it was running on subsidised tracks.
I don’t think anyone bothered to do proper bottom line P&L calculations
back then.
They did (proper calculations).
For example East Coast broke even, in its final operating year, and
VTEC started off requiring a 1.1p subsidy (SWT, on the other hand, made
3.4p overall profit that year). The previous year EC made 0.6p profit,
but as I said at the time, they somewhat fiddled the books by adjusting
their premium year-on-year to make it look like they were exactly
breaking even.
The premiums that some TOCs paid were not a measure of bottom line profits.
Who said they were? The premiums were a commitment to pay lump sums
[usually increasing year-on-year] to the government, and TOCs had to
calculate (and in some cases miscalculated) what level of bid they could
afford to put in.
The one exception was EC, which as I said at the time, and quoted
earlier in this thread, had premiums-with-hindsight which changed from
year to year based on the *actual* operating profits.
Post by Recliner
Changing the premium profile has no effect on bottom line profits.
It does for individual TCs, because the premium is one of the "costs" of
running the business.
Post by Recliner
So your figures are not a measure of the profitability of those routes,
just the operating surplus or deficit of TOCs.
No, that's not what they are.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
National Express East Coast in their final year (which is also the
oldest figures I have easily to hand) made 1.3p profit
{All numbers are per-passenger-mile, nowadays they are quoted pp-km}
Do those calculations take into account the DfT’s direct grants to NR?
Yes! The same spreadsheets have the (higher of course) operating profits
separately.
Post by Recliner
Most such calculations don’t, and it’s clear that your figures don’t.
It's absolutely clear that mine do.
Post by Recliner
So those ‘profits’ are actually just operating surpluses at the TOC
level, not true bottom-line profits at the whole systems level.
No, they are the what-you-call whole systems level.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
In the less-subsidised BR era, InterCity and NSE came close to
breaking even.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
And on current data, it actually needs more subsidy per passenger km
than the WCML.
What are the numbers?
See figures 2 and 3 in
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/udsa42ql/rail-industry-finance-uk-st
atistical-release-202324.pdf
Thanks for the chart, that's very helpful.
LNER has fallen back a bit, to require 0.7 pppk; and only West Coast and
East Anglia are making an overall profit.
However, anyone to the left of the 6.9 pppk dotted blue line is "better
than average", and hence cross-subsidising those to the right of the
dotted blue line.
Not really.
Yes, really! If the railways were run as a single, level playing field,
then all lines would be subsidised by 6.9p, which would result in the
fares on all the TOCs to the left of the blue line to fall, and fares on
all the TOCs to the right of the blue line to increase.
But they’re not. The fact is that almost all operators lose money at the
bottom line, with (at any one time) perhaps one or two that serve London
achieving a very small profit margin. Those one or two have varied over
time.
I don't think I can expect to clear up this oft-repeated
misunderstanding of yours by anything I can usefully write here. I've
tried so many times before, to no effect.
Suffice to say, several commuter TOCs in the SE (plus the EMCL) made
significant operation profits, were then used to subsidise famously
loss-making TOCs. As a whole, the government *still* had to inject a
substantial subsidy of its own, and therefore compared to the neutral
point of eg 6.9p above, those SE commuter TOCs were even more
*relatively* profit making.
Post by Recliner
Freight operators as a whole also lose money, but one or two do manage to
make a small profit.
We can talk about freight once you've unmuddled yourself about passenger
TOCs.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Anything to the right of the zero axis is being subsidised,
some (much) more than others. The only ones doing any (very modest)
cross-subsidising are the WCML and GA regions. And, indeed, GA is a very
well-performing TOC.
Post by Roland Perry
Severe moneypits still include Northern (23.9 pppk), Mersyeyrail (30.2
pppk), Scotrail (30.5 pppk) and TfW (32.0 pppk).
Yes, as always. The regional railways have always needed a very heavy
subsidy.
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
That very clearly included the majority of trains in Scotland, Wales and
The North.
Cue pedants mentioning Northern Ireland and preserved lines in 3, 2, 1..
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2024-12-24 03:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Certes
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
That very clearly included the majority of trains in Scotland, Wales and
The North.
Cue pedants
Pedants? On uk.r? Surely not!
Post by Certes
mentioning Northern Ireland
My fault for defaulting to "UK" rather than GB.
Post by Certes
and preserved lines in 3, 2, 1..
D'oh! Should have specified 'national network' or BR or something…!
Roland Perry
2024-12-24 13:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.

Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2024-12-24 15:27:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.

Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.

It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
Roland Perry
2024-12-24 15:38:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
Which is all very interesting, but doesn't address the point that of the
three biggest money-pits, two are concentrated in major metropolitan
areas, not "out in the sticks". And maybe even the third has most of its
services in denser populated South Wales, than the tumbleweed of
Mid/North Wales.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2024-12-24 16:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2024-12-24 16:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
The funny thing is that the word ‘Great’ is actually quite traditional in
the railways, invariably relating to much smaller entities than GBR will.
Of course, GBR will be much smaller than BR was.

The integration plan, when it eventually emerges, won’t come from
politicians, most of whom know little about the railways.

Ironically, however, two of the worst-performing railway projects of the
last half century were the brain children of the rare Transport Secretary
who was a railway enthusiast and actually wanted the job. He sponsored
projects with grand, unrealistic ambitions whose managers thought they were
empowered to spend whatever it took to satisfy his impossible goals.
Sam Wilson
2024-12-26 23:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
JNugent
2024-12-27 01:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.

Well, unless it was proposed to also introduce a new international code
for NI.
Ken
2024-12-27 11:19:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, UK is
more logical but not so much more logical that a change was called
for. Although there do exist idiots who think that GB was imposed by
the EU and by changing to UK we cast off its shackles.

Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Post by JNugent
Well, unless it was proposed to also introduce a new international code
for NI.
Tweed
2024-12-27 11:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
Ken
2024-12-27 12:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20of%20Great,It%20has%20numerous%20smaller%20islands.
Tweed
2024-12-27 12:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20of%20Great,It%20has%20numerous%20smaller%20islands.
Thank you. But I don’t see how that text justifies your statement that GB
is short for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Certes
2024-12-27 14:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20of%20Great,It%20has%20numerous%20smaller%20islands.
Thank you. But I don’t see how that text justifies your statement that GB
is short for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
A relevant international standard (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2) thinks it is.
Of course, that standard wasn't around when most international vehicle
registration codes were invented, and they differ considerably.
Ken
2024-12-27 15:55:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 12:27:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20of%20Great,It%20has%20numerous%20smaller%20islands.
Thank you. But I don’t see how that text justifies your statement that GB
is short for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Because the full name was, and still is, frequently (or even usually)
shortened to Great Britain, which is conveniently abbreviated to GB.
Marland
2024-12-27 16:47:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 12:27:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20of%20Great,It%20has%20numerous%20smaller%20islands.
Thank you. But I don’t see how that text justifies your statement that GB
is short for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Because the full name was, and still is, frequently (or even usually)
shortened to Great Britain, which is conveniently abbreviated to GB.
What are the rules on continuing to use GB?
I’ve never been one to seek a personal plate but when we purchased our main
car new the salesman made an attempt to match my initials and got pretty
close, albeit as Eric Morecombe might say
the right letters but not all in the right order. Being pre Brexit the GB
letters are within the EU stars.
If that is still allowed then I will probably keep the existing plates
which are in good condition and move them onto a future vehicle.

GH
Charles Ellson
2024-12-30 03:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by Ken
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 12:27:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Ken
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20of%20Great,It%20has%20numerous%20smaller%20islands.
Thank you. But I don’t see how that text justifies your statement that GB
is short for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Because the full name was, and still is, frequently (or even usually)
shortened to Great Britain, which is conveniently abbreviated to GB.
What are the rules on continuing to use GB?
None apply re numberplates if it stays on the same vehicle and doesn't
go abroad, otherwise you need the traditional oval sticker with the
untraditional "UK" on it.
Post by Marland
I’ve never been one to seek a personal plate but when we purchased our main
car new the salesman made an attempt to match my initials and got pretty
close, albeit as Eric Morecombe might say
the right letters but not all in the right order. Being pre Brexit the GB
letters are within the EU stars.
If that is still allowed then I will probably keep the existing plates
which are in good condition and move them onto a future vehicle.
https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates/flags-identifiers-and-stickers
(standard warning - info on gov.uk can often be wrong now that
individual departments no longer have control)
Sam Wilson
2024-12-27 14:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Do you have a reference to substantiate that?
Certes has already mentioned ISO 3166. Here’s an reference to it:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#GB>

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Charles Ellson
2024-12-30 03:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Very short. The tale (possibly reported some time ago in uk.r) was
that the civil servant sent to represent the UK at the relevant
committee had his arse kicked on returning home for agreeing to the
wrong abbreviation.
Post by Ken
Yes, UK is
more logical but not so much more logical that a change was called
for. Although there do exist idiots who think that GB was imposed by
the EU and by changing to UK we cast off its shackles.
Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
The abbreviations for car identification derive from Conventions which
long predate the ISO and are controlled by different agencies although
newer IDs tend to pair with ISO designations.
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
Well, unless it was proposed to also introduce a new international code
for NI.
Graeme Wall
2024-12-30 12:52:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Very short. The tale (possibly reported some time ago in uk.r) was
that the civil servant sent to represent the UK at the relevant
committee had his arse kicked on returning home for agreeing to the
wrong abbreviation.
Urban myth, until the Johnson/Farage whinge-fest over Europe, no-one
gave a monkey's what the abbreviation was.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Charles Ellson
2024-12-30 22:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:52:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Very short. The tale (possibly reported some time ago in uk.r) was
that the civil servant sent to represent the UK at the relevant
committee had his arse kicked on returning home for agreeing to the
wrong abbreviation.
Urban myth, until the Johnson/Farage whinge-fest over Europe, no-one
gave a monkey's what the abbreviation was.
A lot of people on the smaller island cared as "GB" ignored them.
Graeme Wall
2024-12-31 09:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:52:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Very short. The tale (possibly reported some time ago in uk.r) was
that the civil servant sent to represent the UK at the relevant
committee had his arse kicked on returning home for agreeing to the
wrong abbreviation.
Urban myth, until the Johnson/Farage whinge-fest over Europe, no-one
gave a monkey's what the abbreviation was.
A lot of people on the smaller island cared as "GB" ignored them.
Again, a recent trend, encouraged by unscrupulous and ill-informed
politicians.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Tweed
2024-12-31 09:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:52:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Very short. The tale (possibly reported some time ago in uk.r) was
that the civil servant sent to represent the UK at the relevant
committee had his arse kicked on returning home for agreeing to the
wrong abbreviation.
Urban myth, until the Johnson/Farage whinge-fest over Europe, no-one
gave a monkey's what the abbreviation was.
A lot of people on the smaller island cared as "GB" ignored them.
Again, a recent trend, encouraged by unscrupulous and ill-informed
politicians.
Many years ago, when not many cars displayed a GB sticker, my now long
deceased grandmother thought it meant Gone Bankrupt and was required to be
displayed as a badge of shame.
M***@DastardlyHQ.org
2024-12-31 10:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 09:37:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Again, a recent trend, encouraged by unscrupulous and ill-informed
politicians.
Many years ago, when not many cars displayed a GB sticker, my now long
deceased grandmother thought it meant Gone Bankrupt and was required to be
displayed as a badge of shame.
Great Britain is a geographical term rather than political and its the
island containing england, scotland and wales.

The British Isles is also geographical and is GB + the WHOLE of ireland and
assorted minor islands.

The UK is political and is GB + NI and assorted islands.
Graeme Wall
2024-12-31 10:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:52:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Very short. The tale (possibly reported some time ago in uk.r) was
that the civil servant sent to represent the UK at the relevant
committee had his arse kicked on returning home for agreeing to the
wrong abbreviation.
Urban myth, until the Johnson/Farage whinge-fest over Europe, no-one
gave a monkey's what the abbreviation was.
A lot of people on the smaller island cared as "GB" ignored them.
Again, a recent trend, encouraged by unscrupulous and ill-informed
politicians.
Many years ago, when not many cars displayed a GB sticker, my now long
deceased grandmother thought it meant Gone Bankrupt and was required to be
displayed as a badge of shame.
Sounds like the Harold Wilson era!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Sam Wilson
2024-12-31 11:01:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Very short. The tale (possibly reported some time ago in uk.r) was
that the civil servant sent to represent the UK at the relevant
committee had his arse kicked on returning home for agreeing to the
wrong abbreviation.
Urban myth, until the Johnson/Farage whinge-fest over Europe, no-one
gave a monkey's what the abbreviation was.
Not entirely true, but it was rather limited to quite small interested
parties. When there was a debate about the future of computer networking,
before the Internet gained global dominance, the UK used (and still uses)
UK in its names. The X.400 email system (one thing to rule them all…),
proposed by national PTTs, used ISO-3166 abbreviations and would have
required all email addresses to use GB. There was considerable debate
among interested parties about which was more appropriate.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Certes
2024-12-31 10:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
The nutters in NI made that last point but it's wrong. GB is short for
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, UK is
more logical but not so much more logical that a change was called
for. Although there do exist idiots who think that GB was imposed by
the EU and by changing to UK we cast off its shackles.
Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely. In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words which
describe the country's location rather than its form of government,
to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity. The main exception is
US, because America is even more ambiguous.
Post by Ken
Post by JNugent
Well, unless it was proposed to also introduce a new international code
for NI.
Roland Perry
2025-01-02 18:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Certes
Post by Ken
Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely. In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity. The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2025-01-02 19:50:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Sam Wilson
2025-01-02 20:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Graeme Wall
2025-01-02 20:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.
And it did include a few "kingdoms".
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Marland
2025-01-02 20:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.
So should the plate read 84 B or 61B ?


GH
Graeme Wall
2025-01-02 21:59:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.
So should the plate read 84 B or 61B ?
<hurriedly looks up his shed codes>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Nobody
2025-01-02 22:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:39:31 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.
Sam
"U-S-A! U-S-A!"
Sam Wilson
2025-01-04 22:46:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nobody
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:39:31 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.
Sam
"U-S-A! U-S-A!"
Is that a three-cyclinder beat?

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Nobody
2025-01-05 02:45:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 22:46:34 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Nobody
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:39:31 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.
Sam
"U-S-A! U-S-A!"
Is that a three-cyclinder beat?
Sam
Dear esteamed colleague: I've tried 4488 times to personally check,
without success.

Certainly, the chants slipped by for Springbok supporters on 9 June
1956 at Rugby Park in Hamilton when Waikato told Danie where to go
14-10 when he was Craven a smoke off pitch.
Sam Wilson
2025-01-05 21:08:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nobody
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 22:46:34 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Nobody
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:39:31 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
There was a Union of South Africa, of course.
Sam
"U-S-A! U-S-A!"
Is that a three-cyclinder beat?
Sam
Dear esteamed colleague: I've tried 4488 times to personally check,
without success.
Perhaps you should keep trying for 60,009 times, or maybe 9 would have been
enough.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Roland Perry
2025-01-03 11:31:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities
but I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
I said "could be", not "might be", or even "once used to be".
--
Roland Perry
Ulf_Kutzner
2025-01-03 13:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
Bismark's Germany was a union of various kingdoms and principalities but
I don't know it they ever formally used the term.
North German Confederation, later German Empire.

But there was a Prussian Union of Churches.

Regards, ULF
Nobody
2025-01-02 22:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Certes
Post by Ken
Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely. In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity. The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
"Los Estados Unidos Méxicanos"... EU...
Certes
2025-01-02 22:59:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
 Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely.  In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity.  The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States' and could just
as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
The ever-helpful Wikipedia lists Denmark as a UK and Mexico as a US,
along with several historical uses.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_(disambiguation)>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_(disambiguation)>
Charles Ellson
2025-01-02 23:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Certes
Post by Ken
Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely. In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity. The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States'
Beazil.
Post by Roland Perry
and could just as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
If you don't insist on "kingdom" then you have the United Arab
Emirates. Denmark and the Netherlands are also Kingdoms composed of
multiple countries but IIRC not formed by a combination of
pre-existing kingdoms rather than the base kingdom incorporating
possessed external territories.
Charles Ellson
2025-01-03 00:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:51:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Certes
Post by Ken
Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely. In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity. The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States'
Beazil.
or even Brazil/Brasil but not Basil.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Roland Perry
and could just as easily be more than one 'United Kingdom'.
If you don't insist on "kingdom" then you have the United Arab
Emirates. Denmark and the Netherlands are also Kingdoms composed of
multiple countries but IIRC not formed by a combination of
pre-existing kingdoms rather than the base kingdom incorporating
possessed external territories.
Graeme Wall
2025-01-03 10:43:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:51:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Certes
Post by Ken
Our ISO 3166 code remains GB. Will they come for that next?
Unlikely. In theory and practice, ISO prefers to abbreviate words
which describe the country's location rather than its form of
government, to increase stability and to reduce ambiguity. The main
exception is US, because America is even more ambiguous.
ISO prefers abbreviations not to raise potential ambiguities, hence
"United Kingdom" and "United States" would not be acceptable for new
entrants. Because there's more then one 'United States'
Beazil.
or even Brazil/Brasil but not Basil.
Just don't mention the war.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Ulf_Kutzner
2025-01-03 14:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:51:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
Beazil.
or even Brazil/Brasil but not Basil.
Just don't mention the war.
But many of those are related to the UK/Commonwealth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_(name)#Given_name

Regards, ULF
Graeme Wall
2025-01-03 14:16:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:51:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
Beazil.
or even Brazil/Brasil but not Basil.
Just don't mention the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_(name)#Given_name
Regards, ULF
I take it you have never seen Fawlty Towers?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Nobody
2025-01-03 16:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 14:16:55 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:51:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
Beazil.
or even Brazil/Brasil but not Basil.
Just don't mention the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_(name)#Given_name
Regards, ULF
I take it you have never seen Fawlty Towers?
Qué?
Ulf_Kutzner
2025-01-03 16:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nobody
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 14:16:55 +0000, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:51:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
Post by Charles Ellson
Beazil.
or even Brazil/Brasil but not Basil.
Just don't mention the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_(name)#Given_name
Regards, ULF
I take it you have never seen Fawlty Towers?
Qué?
Fala do senhor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Fawlty .
Sam Wilson
2024-12-27 15:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
But GB is more recognisable in many other languages:

French: Grande Bretagne vs Royaume-Uni
German: Großbritannien vs Vereinigtes Königreich
Spanish: Gran Bretaña vs Reino Unido
Italian: Gran Bretagna vs Regno Unito
Dutch: Groot-Brittannië vs Verenigd Koninkrijk

and so on. It’s by no means all languages, but it’s enough of our
neighbours to make it obvious.
Post by JNugent
Well, unless it was proposed to also introduce a new international code
for NI.
See Theo’s take on NI politics and Brexit.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Tweed
2024-12-27 15:11:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by JNugent
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
French: Grande Bretagne vs Royaume-Uni
German: Großbritannien vs Vereinigtes Königreich
Spanish: Gran Bretaña vs Reino Unido
Italian: Gran Bretagna vs Regno Unito
Dutch: Groot-Brittannië vs Verenigd Koninkrijk
and so on. It’s by no means all languages, but it’s enough of our
neighbours to make it obvious.
Post by JNugent
Well, unless it was proposed to also introduce a new international code
for NI.
See Theo’s take on NI politics and Brexit.
Sam
And England is what is used by most foreigners.
Charles Ellson
2024-12-30 03:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 15:11:27 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by JNugent
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.
It was surprising, but more logical than "GB", which doesn't cover the
whole United Kingdom.
French: Grande Bretagne vs Royaume-Uni
German: Großbritannien vs Vereinigtes Königreich
Spanish: Gran Bretaña vs Reino Unido
Italian: Gran Bretagna vs Regno Unito
Dutch: Groot-Brittannië vs Verenigd Koninkrijk
and so on. It’s by no means all languages, but it’s enough of our
neighbours to make it obvious.
Post by JNugent
Well, unless it was proposed to also introduce a new international code
for NI.
See Theo’s take on NI politics and Brexit.
Sam
And England is what is used by most foreigners.
A variable feast.
Graeme Wall
2024-12-27 09:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.
Change for change's sake.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Theo
2024-12-27 09:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.
Change for change's sake.
No, it was Johnson's sop to NI after he sold them down the river re Brexit
trading arrangements, because he was too lazy to care about the details.
Marland
2024-12-27 10:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
It would be possible for GBR to reassemble something similar again, but
with the Scottish and Welsh fragments remaining fragmented. Of course, we
have no idea if this is at all likely to be the plan.
What makes you think there is a plan? Johnson's original objective was
to label as much of the countries infrastructure Great British to suit
his pseudo-patriotism. Starmer is just pretending to nationalise the
railways to keep the unions happy. There is no sensible plan.
Weirdly he also oversaw the change of international car registration
letters from GB to UK.
Change for change's sake.
And Guernsey,Jersey,I.O.M and Gibraltar still use GB* so it is still
inconsistent.

And it has played havoc with the paintwork on the Bentley prising the
chrome GB off and putting UK on. (I wish). IIRCC those chromed
letters on high end cars were not actually legal but owners of such
vehicles were rarely challenged.

GB.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2024-12-24 23:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
There have been other changes along the way:

TPe and Northern rearranged out of fNW and NS, with part lost to TfW

The Central Trains behemoth fragmented to EMR, WMR, LNW, XC, Chiltern and
TfW

Some rearranging in the East (not my area of speciality)
Recliner
2024-12-25 07:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
TPe and Northern rearranged out of fNW and NS, with part lost to TfW
The Central Trains behemoth fragmented to EMR, WMR, LNW, XC, Chiltern and
TfW
Some rearranging in the East (not my area of speciality)
Yes, indeed. GWR was just one example that I chose to cite.
Recliner
2024-12-25 07:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I don't entirely buy the idea that Scotrail and Northern are "regional"
in the traditional railway sense, because so much their networks are
concentrated in a handful of major metropolitan areas. EMR's non-MML
services are far more 'regional' in nature.
You can dream up any classifications you like, but that’s not how the
industry does it.
I didn't introduce the term into this thread. The "needing very heavy
subsidy" TOCs are Wales, Scotland and Northern, which while not-serving
London, also don't serve numerous other "regions" of the UK.
Post by Recliner
Passenger railways that don’t serve London are regional railways, and
inherently heavily loss-making.
Regional Railways used to be a division, and didn't include much in the
way of operations in Wales, Scotland and Northern.
Regional Railways <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Railways>, by
its very definition, operated every passenger train in the UK which wasn't
InterCity, Network South East or a charter.
OK, I was really talking about Central Trains, but that was just a
subset.
Wonkypedia: "Created out of the Central division of Regional
Railways during the Privatisation of British Rail, Central Trains
passed into the private sector on 2 March 1997. The franchise was
awarded to National Express, who maintained control of the company
until its eventual demise in 2007. Central Trains employed over 2,400
staff."
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
TPe and Northern rearranged out of fNW and NS, with part lost to TfW
The Central Trains behemoth fragmented to EMR, WMR, LNW, XC, Chiltern and
TfW
Some rearranging in the East (not my area of speciality)
Yes, indeed. GWR was just one example that I chose to cite.
Graeme Wall
2024-12-25 09:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 25/12/2024 07:49, Recliner wrote:


For some reason I am getting all your posts twice.

Merry Christmas.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2024-12-25 10:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
For some reason I am getting all your posts twice.
Merry Christmas.
Yes, have a Merry, Merry Christmas [Christmas]!

I’m in a hotel with weak WiFi, and some posts appear to fail at first
attempt (but actually did get through), so it sends them again.
Roland Perry
2024-12-25 11:09:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
The privatisation of the passenger railway consisted of splitting each of
the three BR passenger sectors into multiple smaller, geographic operators.
The same was done with the freight sector, but three of the bigger
fragments were rapidly acquired by an American company, and combined again
to form EWS.
Subsequently, there’s been some splitting and joining of the original
passenger franchises, with today’s GWR including former NSE (Thames
Trains), InterCity (First Great Western) and Regional (Wessex)
predecessors. But most of today’s TOCs are still fragments of BR’s NSE,
InterCity and Regional Railways.
TPe and Northern rearranged out of fNW and NS, with part lost to TfW
The Central Trains behemoth fragmented to EMR, WMR, LNW, XC, Chiltern and
TfW
Some rearranging in the East (not my area of speciality)
There was some rationalisation in the way specific flows were allocated
to Anglia, vs EMR vs XC-lite. Hence why Ely now has three TOCs operating
those routes, and not just Central.

They didn't alter the timetable much, so you have numerous instances of
trains from different TOCs arriving/departing almost simultaneously,
when originally that was so crews could swap from one to another. I
remember my trip home in the evening from Peterborough to Cambridge via
a change at Ely had a guaranteed connection, because as well as some pax
making the change, the crew did as well.

Now, with no crew swap required (or possible), if the inbound train you
were on was late, the connection could be missed.
--
Roland Perry
Sam Wilson
2024-12-18 13:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
From
https://www.thetimes.com/article/bb5df0b9-e2b9-4816-b72b-fab8fdfc5edb?shareToken=17b0fdf3eea2684763fafc15f8657680
East Coast Main Line shows how to run the railways
Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a
silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more
reliability, lower subsidies and fares.
But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to
copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on
Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is
where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open
access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.
[snip]
It’s notable that LNER has recently effectively increased its fares. That
says market differentiation (or cartel!) rather than direct competition.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Loading...