Main line steam’s future – the big Network Rail interview
In an exclusive interview, and of Network Rail’s charter train team tell Down Main that steam must adapt to nationwide change if it is to thrive.
ain line steam is tiny.
Of all the passenger trains that run across the system each year, steam makes up perhaps 0.1%. Include freight and the figure is even smaller. If that seems abstract, try a real world example: Birmingham New Street hosts as many trains in a weekday lunchtime as steam trips run – across the country – in a whole year.
Sure, many people are involved – from those of us for whom steam is a way of life, voluntary or otherwise, through to one-off passengers. But, in railway terms, the steam charter market is miniscule. Fact.
That perhaps wouldn’t be an issue, but
Mproblems are stacking up. We know what they are – flick back through issues of Steam Railway and you’ll find them. They start with a basic one: finding space on the network to run. Then there’s gauging, toilet tanks… and the labour-intensive nature of planning one-off tours that in the past has often led to uncertainty – even in the days before a run. Yes, it can all be solved – just as there has already been work on fire risk, loadings and much else. But if you weren’t ‘one of us’, you might ask, ‘why bother?’. Fortunately, the ‘open access’ legislation set up at privatisation, and Network Rail (NR), take a different view. In fact you may be glad to hear the organisation that runs the network declares that it sees charters – and steam – as “a really important part of what we do.” Of course, that’s easy to say – but harder to deliver. Which is why NR’s statements on what it has planned for its next five-year Control Period are so significant.
In one sense, Control Periods are a chance to reset the dial. Charters hardly take up a large slice of what is a massive planning agenda, but these are still crucial moments. Perhaps you remember the fear five years ago that reform of the ‘fines’ payable when trains disrupt others could make charters all but extinct (SR410). That, as we now know, was averted.
So, here we are half a decade on. The sixth
Control Period (CP6) begins in April 2019. Charters are tucked away on pages 80-82 of NR’s Freight and National Passenger Operators Route Strategic Plan (which covers steam and charters), but what those pages contain could amount to a revolution. Even a positive one. It’s one of this summer’s many boiling hot days in the glass temple that is NR’s Milton Keynes HQ. Sat around the table are Rachel Gilliland – who took over the organisation’s management of charters from Stephen Cornish in 2009 and probably needs little introduction – and Dan Fredriksson, who maybe does. It’s to Dan that much of the day-to-day business of steam now falls. In an organisation that’s maybe not known for snappy job titles, he is officially a Customer Relationship Executive – having taken on the role in July last year. That follows a number of jobs for NR, which he joined in 2008; mainly they have been in capacity planning of various sorts. His background is not steam, but the 36-year-old says “the thought of getting a better understanding of heritage and steam trains really appealed to me. This is because it brings its own unique set of challenges in a modern railway system.”
Rachel, meanwhile, is now some rungs up the ladder as Head of Freight Policy and Customer Relationship Management. There’s a lot to talk about. Unusually for Down Main, we’re therefore turning the column over to the discussion that unfolds.
PATHING PROBLEM
Fixed paths. Regular readers will know it’s a subject that’s frequently come up in this column since we first raised the idea some years ago as a way to fight off the evermore crowded state of the railway.
For it has increasingly become clear that one of the biggest problems for charters is very basic: finding space on the network. Since privatisation, steam has had the right to run where it likes – but only if it can fit in. If there isn’t space that’s not already taken by timetabled trains… well, tough. You don’t run. That structure was devised when the railway was expected to carry fewer passengers over time, not more. Open Access gave us the varied and lively steam scene that’s followed. Yet it has also proved a time bomb; there have been frequent predictions that as new trains and timetables arrive, steam wouldn’t be able to run (remember the predictions about ‘Pendolinos’ on the West
Coast Main Line?). So far, it’s true, the more dramatic doomsday suggestions have largely fallen short.
Even so, paths on the southern half of the East Coast have dragged out in recent years as the Great Northern line has become busier – bringing earlier starts and later arrivals. Support crews waiting hours in sidings for their engine to be able to return to Southall depot have a pretty good idea how busy the Great Western has become, too. And, while the capital is the epicentre, a similar squeeze is taking place around the UK.
That’s now. But there’s every reason to believe that the rapid ratcheting of the thumbscrews so long predicted by this column is all but upon us. Crossrail is now due to open next year; Great Western electrification is ongoing; and the open-heart surgery around Euston designed to weave High Speed 2 into the existing network will soon start. Elsewhere there are new trains, and new services. This December’s timetable will be a key moment.
In response, as we’ve touched on in recent issues, NR is proposing effectively the biggest shake-up since privatisation. It’s moving forward with the idea of fixed paths. Leading this is a trio of regular schedules being tried out this summer – Victoria to Weymouth (Thursdays), Bristol to Par (Sundays) and ‘Surrey Circulars’ (weekdays). There is, though, a sticking point. Open Access and the rights of charters are set out in the laws surrounding privatisation. It is those that state charters have the right to bid for anything – but effectively the right to ‘hold’ nothing.
Far from the ‘command and control’ railway that was British Rail, NR can’t simply change those rules and that means any fixed paths would, in fact, effectively be voluntary. For now then, regular paths must be found within the timetable. More radical change would need reform – and the engagement of the Office of Rail and Road.
The regular path approach is “something that we already do with freight”, says Rachel Gilliland. Whereas normally operators bid for paths, she says that in this case NR “in effect acts as a timetable participant and bids for that strategic capacity.”
The trial for charters is “to see if we can do it in the same way.”
Dan Fredriksson says that in the longer term, “we want to work across the industry to find out what promoters really want out of strategic capacity paths. Where ideally would they be and what kind of itineraries would we build into a protected capacity range? But we’ve also been working within the constraints of the existing processes to try to secure some strategic capacity in the way that we have done for freight. So we’ve been using the timetabling process.”
Given what’s already been said above, it should be no surprise that ‘go anywhere’ rights to bid are so far unaffected. Indeed, Rachel stresses that “we’ve not said to anybody you cannot bid for ‘X, Y and Z’.”
In a trade-off for receiving rights to fixed paths though, that could ultimately change: “I think probably where we might want to get to – a long way down the line, whether or not it would be achieved in CP6 I don’t know – is in addition to strategic capacity, some kind of reform to the track access contracts.”
‘SCOTSMAN’ BANNED?
Currently only the Fort William-Mallaig ‘Jacobite’, which operates under separate open access arrangements, has what are known as ‘firm rights’ to paths.
“So something that we may want to look at with the regulator is whether or not to change that to give the operators and the industry some certainty and security to hold rights for specific paths. But, as a result, that may mean that there would be certain things that would be off-limits – that they wouldn’t be able to bid for.”
Some may bristle at that last comment. After all, we’ve become used to the idea of bidding to go where we like over the last couple of decades. Yet as this column has argued before, if the railway becomes so full that you can’t in reality run, such rights become increasingly theoretical – and a trade-off is surely worth thinking about. Clearly, though, the key thing is what such paths might look like.
Right now, we don’t know. Future timetables are uncertain. Plus, Dan Fredriksson says it’s really “quite early” in the conversation – with discussions on what operators and promoters want from paths currently taking place.
Yet, bad news before we go further: as things currently stand, you’re unlikely to get all you hope for. While he says this is a personal opinion, Dan Fredriksson agrees with those who think the new timetables will squeeze steam from the East Coast Main Line south of Peterborough; any charter path will be one that relies on the train getting out of the way without the need for things like water stops.
Dan says there’s still a need to “work through
that exercise” but adds: “I think, certainly within the constraints of what we currently have in terms of contracting… that’s where we will get to – that it’s got to be a fast path out of the capital.”
It’s true to say there have been hints in that direction for a while now. But assuming the southern section of the ECML does effectively become ‘off limits’, how does NR respond to what could become a highly emotive topic? After all, you can see headlines about Flying Scotsman effectively being ‘banned’ from King’s Cross now – and not only in the railway press.
There are no surprises in NR’s official answer to that one – not from either Rachel or Dan on the day, but provided subsequently. It reinforces that it “supports the operation” of steam “where capacity and route capability allows” and that is “not seeking to limit the scope of where steam trains can operate.” But it adds that the “reality is that the capacity constraints of the network are changing as the demands of all rail users changes. The usage of capacity has intensified, which makes it more difficult to provide a path for trains with different operating characteristics to those around it. Generally, modern trains have faster acceleration and in many places the frequency of trains has increased, which limits available capacity.
“Network Rail is actively working to secure
PROPORTIONATELY THEY TAKE UP MORE RESOURCE PER TRAIN THAN THE REST OF THE OPERATIONS OUT THERE, BUT IT’S THE SECTOR OF THE INDUSTRY THAT CAN REALLY WORK FOR US RACHEL GILLILAND, NETWORK RAIL
a future for steam train operations on the main line rail network for years to come. Network Rail has to balance the requirements of many different rail users, which means we are required to make compromises which best meets the railway industry needs.”
So, we will see.
This is not just about the East Coast either. Coinciding with next May’s timetable, work to build High Speed 2 will smash into attempts to maintain a service from Euston.
Dan Fredriksson says NR hasn’t yet seen the final timetable, but says “I should imagine that it will be a significant challenge for a charter to operate out of.”
As for Paddington, “again we need to see the timetable to see what’s realistic”.
All that surely, though, makes the case for reform stronger. For it must also be true that if the rules could be changed to bring about firm rights, then guaranteeing capacity would be that bit easier.
DEADLINE DECEMBER ’18
So, what next? For the December 2018 timetable, NR plans a ‘Strategic Capacity Statement’ to develop paths that can be offered to operators as needed – a process expected to be discussed with them soon after the key date in the timetable planning process, August 17.
Dan Fredriksson envisages breaking the problem down into parts.
“One is, what’s the expectation, or aspiration, from promoters? With operators it’s working with them about how we would secure that capacity in the much longer term… this ought not to be a Network Railled initiative. This should be the different parties working together.”
While NR has established what it thinks “are some of the key routes that we would want to have some capacity on” he accepts “we’re not necessarily the experts on that” – and suggests it’s up to promoters “to help us validate what we’ve done already and to develop and build on that.” Rather than being effectively the old BR ‘approved routes’, Rachel says that “some of these routes wouldn’t necessarily be secondary lines. They might be main lines, if we can find the capacity. This isn’t a move where Network Rail has to say ‘let’s get steam off the main lines’. This is a move to say ‘let’s secure some key strategic paths for steam’, and we don’t yet know where those will be.”
Neither will they necessarily be mainly at weekends. As Rachel says later in the conversation, “what we don’t want to do is end up changing the market,” adding “if there’s currently high demand for weekday paths to certain destinations, we don’t want to say ‘oh, no – weekends only’ and as a result cutting off that demand or shifting the market to an extent that it becomes no longer viable.”
‘ART OF THE POSSIBLE’
Until now we’ve discussed the pretty obvious draw of having rights to paths in carving out a schedule. But Rachel names potential operational benefits, too. In particular, she says, “one of the things that often gets mentioned is vegetation.
“I think that the idea would be, once we’ve got a catalogue of set paths, making sure that those paths are robust in a number of ways… keeping them clear of vegetation…”
That, though, seems to be an ‘art of the possible’ response, because if you wanted to take a ‘fundamentalist approach’ you could argue that NR has to keep the whole network clear and gauged for everything and has to facilitate a response to run wherever.
“I think we also need to have a view on the best use of taxpayers’ money,” responds Rachel, “and I think keeping the entire network clear 100% of the time for a train that may never run on a particular route wouldn’t be the best use of that.”
How often would such a path need to be used, in NR’s view, to make it viable? That still needs to be formally discussed, but a figure that’s been internally talked about is every 90 days – which would put charters in line with what already happens with freight. Dan Fredriksson argues that such a figure “seems like a sensible starting point for that kind of ‘use it or lose it’ approach.”
What about NR itself? Compared with planning every charter as a bespoke job, the potential saving of effort and resource is obvious. In the case of the VictoriaWeymouth ‘trial’, Dan says the charter planning team is finding “we’ve spent a day on a job instead of a week, two weeks.” However, he sees the relative certainty such repeat operation generates as having a further big benefit to the promoter – certainty to plan and sell. After all, it’s not so long since you would have been reading stories about trains potentially being stopped, or engines failing gauging, just days before they were due to run – famously with Flying Scotsman and the Forth Bridge in May 2016 (SR455).
Dan Fredriksson says he’s “not necessarily suggesting that we would offer the charter path 12 weeks out, but if you have it in the WTT [Working Timetable] and you know that it’s not impacted by engineering works, then you have a much higher level of confidence and you can sell with that same level of confidence.”
To be fair, things have already changed somewhat. Indeed, you might perhaps have noticed the absence this summer of that staple of previous seasons – complaints about times being delivered so late that anxious customers have still been waiting for tickets in the days before a run.
WE’VE ALSO BEEN WORKING WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE EXISTING PROCESSES TO TRY TO SECURE SOME STRATEGIC CAPACITY DAN FREDRIKSSON, NETWORK RAIL
One consequence of NR’s planning struggles in recent years was that it moved the deadline for submitting bids to run trains from 12 weeks (known as ‘T12’) to 14 weeks. Other changes have included the laser remeasuring of engines using the latest Rail Industry Standards model, as well as a simple increase in the number of gauging engineers, in response to the need to gauge the new fleets of rolling stock currently being delivered.
Dan Fredriksson contends that the process is already “working much better than it was previously.” He adds that as well as the gauging request being submitted 14 weeks before a run, it “should come in with the locomotive that’s intended to be used and, ideally, backup locomotives. Now, we don’t always get that. That sometimes means that we’re trying to do some last-minute gauging, but the vast majority now come in at T14, the gauging takes place and is delivered by the gauging engineers, usually about eight weeks before operations.”
Dan adds that “maybe a couple of examples” have gone inside T1 – or one week before a trip – “but generally we’re offering back at two weeks before the operation. So, from speaking to some of the people who have been there a while, it feels like it’s in a better place.”
SUPPORT FROM THE TOP
Compared with some previous interviews with NR, you might think all this sounds pretty positive. For sure, there are still big questions – such as what strategic paths will actually look like – but maybe it sounds positive because it actually is. Support for charters, Rachel says, comes from the chairman downwards.
“From the top of the organisation, up to and including Sir Peter Hendy [NR chairman], we see them [charters] as a really important part of what we do.” “Proportionately, charters take up more resource per train than the rest of the operations out there, but it’s the sector of the industry that can really work for us.”
In that she’s effectively acknowledging the truth first put so memorably by BR Chairman Sir Peter Parker many years ago; for steam might be a tiny part of what the railway does, but it nevertheless ‘warms the market’. After all, what better way is there to draw good publicity than with Flying Scotsman, or putting Tornado on service trains, as Northern did last year (SR464)?
In terms of the public consciousness, steam certainly punches above its weight. Of course that’s also true if things go wrong. However, in terms of steam performance, Rachel says that compared to a lot of other operators, “they actually perform pretty well... There’s quite a lot of robustness in the paths.” Rachel accepts she’s “a little bit away from the detail” these days, “but my perception is that, putting everything together – timing, gauging and relationships across the industry – we’re in a much better place than maybe we were… I think things are looking really good, and we want to keep it that way.”
●● For the latest on NR’s move to implement mandatory Controlled Emission Toilets on all charter rolling stock, see News.