ECML franchise fails .... again....

[Grovenor]

This news may also be very unwelcome at a time of proposed new franchise models. Let's hope it is not much more than a blip....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/05/fall-in-rail-journeys-raises-questions-for-train-franchise-firms

Given the slow motion crash currently being inflicted on the UK economy by the brexiteers  it will be a miracle if it is only a blip.

Regards

[Coryton]

 

 

Stagecoach did pretty much exactly that in the early days of local bus deregulation.  In Darlington, for example, Souter drove the competing bus company out by letting people ride his buses for free.  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission described Stagecoache's tactics as "predatory, deplorable and against the public interest".  But he got away with it.

 

There are plenty of other examples though not usually with free buses.

 

However, when Stagecoach brought down and bought out Preston Bus they were made to give it back. (Or at any rate sell it to someone else).

 

I do remember passing through Darlington station and seeing signs announcing the wonderful news that from now on residents of Darlington would be able to benefit from all the convenience of having a single bus company (whether they liked it or not).

[The Stationmaster]

Slightly off topic but can anyone explain why Hull Trains are such a success? Is it because they are a single route operator and is a limited service, also non Franachise open access?

Also does anyone know if Grand Central is successful? Is it because they also are are non Franchise open access?

Phil

 

There is some ORCATS raiding involved but I suspect the main reason - in the way these companies originally were - is that they have very simple operational patterns which means lower overheads and a far leaner management team.  Plus of course they aren't trying to earn back the huge sums that are spent on bidding for franchises.

 

I'm sure.

 

But shipping companies, airlines and coach companies don't have to get together and decide whose ship/plane/coach is going to occupy which bit of sea/air/road at 2.37 on a Tuesday afternoon.

 

Perhaps more importantly when considering vertical integration, line closures for maintenance/improvements generally have a much bigger impact on rail than any equivalent for other modes of travel.

 

 

But that ignores the reality of the two situations.  In a nationalised BR when I wanted freight train paths I was usually at the bottom of the timetable heap and sometimes had to twist various arms to get what I needed - in the event of an irreconcilable clash a more senior manager would make a decision based on what I and my passenger colleague plus our relevant commercial colleagues had to say.  in the post privatisation world, with me by then working for a passenger operator, my train pathing and access situation was protected by a written contract (which hadn't existed in BR days) so I, and all operators moved from a situation where things might have to be discussed and talked about at length in order to get a senior level decision to one where my situation was protected by a contract.

 

And if there were again irreconcilable problems they went to an independent committee (within the industry) for adjudication so potential for bias as it had an independent Chairman.  Overall the situation was far better and the only problem with Railtrack - as they then were - was over engineering possesions.  But, again, I had a level of contract protection and in reality it was no different from BR where a possession programme was agreed between operators and engineers.  I worked, at a senior level, in operations planning and timetable planning, and in the privatised railway track access contracts, in both worlds and to be honest I found the privatised system far better and much fairer than the BR one had been because if it went to the wire I now had the protection of a contract and independent adjudication.

 

What privatisation and separation of infrastructure and train operation did was introduce a formalised system and provide far clearer resolutions in the event of clashes at the planning stage - what had always gone on continued to go on but the decision points moved.  And if everything went back under one central control it would still have to go on because we are mainly dealing with a mixed traffic railway with various sorts of train operation.  This is what simplistic minded politicians seem to be unable to understand hence what some of Grayling is proposing is really a nonsense except when it comes to possibly saving on infrastructure payments out of the state's kitty (and experience thus far has shown that probably won't work either).

[phil-b259]

Perhaps retendering could be part of the next series of the Apprentice?

 

Because HM Treasury is greedy - thats why. When will the thick British political establishment understand that a constant, if mediocre level of profit in the long term is far more realistic than short term cash windfalls or deals with large payments at the end of contracts which private sector companies will be able to wiggle out of.

 

Mind you they have been constantly announcing a massive uplift in growth in successive budgets for ages now - and it never happens.

 

Maybe its the effect of useless politicians not being able to see beyond the next general or as seems to be the case with the current Government, jockeying for position ready for the next party leadership election.

[RfDforever]

The Stationmaster's post above suggests ORCATS raiding possibilities by Grand Central and Hull. I am fairly certain in the case of GC and slightly less so  in the case of the original Hull Trains entity that they do not subscribe to that principle, so that they do not accept 'any operator' tickets between, say, Doncaster and KX. Conversely it means that they retain/retained all of the revenue on tickets they sold. 

Certainly Grand Central do not accept 'ATOC' tickets and, originally, Hull did not and I took this as a sign of the determination not to be involved in any agreement which involved reciprocal arrangements.

Currently, First Hull do accept ATOC tickets and I take this as an indication the they are now party to revenue-sharing.

[Coryton]

The Stationmaster's post above suggests ORCATS raiding possibilities by Grand Central and Hull. I am fairly certain in the case of GC and slightly less so  in the case of the original Hull Trains entity that they do not subscribe to that principle, so that they do not accept 'any operator' tickets between, say, Doncaster and KX. Conversely it means that they retain/retained all of the revenue on tickets they sold. 

Certainly Grand Central do not accept 'ATOC' tickets and, originally, Hull did not and I took this as a sign of the determination not to be involved in any agreement which involved reciprocal arrangements.

Currently, First Hull do accept ATOC tickets and I take this as an indication the they are now party to revenue-sharing.

 

Not sure what you mean by ATOC tickets, but a quick look at the Grand Central ticket booking site suggests that - as I had thought - they do accept "any permitted" tickets (given that they offer to sell them for their services). Some years ago I used an "any permitted" ticket on Hull trains and I planned (but then never made) a journey from London to Aberdeen partly with Grand Central on a saver.

 

I was under the impression that open access operators had to accept any operator tickets - and if they don't surely "any permitted" tickets for any route that could involve an open access operator would have to specify something like "not Grand Central or Hull trains", or maybe it would be OK if there were very clear warnings on stations and trains that these are not normal trains (which is something I've never seen).

 

(Added:) I wonder who is going to buy an advance first class single at £87.10 when there is a walk-up fare of £84.70 valid on the same train? (Both Grand Central only tickets...) Maybe this is where Hattons got their second-hand-is-more-than-new pricing scheme from?

Edited November 30, 2017 by Coryton

[peanuts]

There are plenty of other examples though not usually with free buses.

 

However, when Stagecoach brought down and bought out Preston Bus they were made to give it back. (Or at any rate sell it to someone else).

 

I do remember passing through Darlington station and seeing signs announcing the wonderful news that from now on residents of Darlington would be able to benefit from all the convenience of having a single bus company (whether they liked it or not).

first bus did that with our local service local small bus company came in with a ten min service that extended to the local hospital all day return ticket £4.80 first matched thier service interval and brought out a special £3.50 return ticket local company couldn't compete and abandoned the route service interval went back to every 20 mins they tried to put the ticket price back up but were not allowed to by GMTL 

[Coryton]

first bus did that with our local service local small bus company came in with a ten min service that extended to the local hospital all day return ticket £4.80 first matched thier service interval and brought out a special £3.50 return ticket local company couldn't compete and abandoned the route service interval went back to every 20 mins they tried to put the ticket price back up but were not allowed to by GMTL 

 

There must be some very special local arrangements for that to have been possible.

[peanuts]

There must be some very special local arrangements for that to have been possible.

Dont know what it is/was but knww that an off peak return on that and one other route is £3.50 where as everyother  firstbus route is £4.80 return 

[Barry O]

The ECML infrastructure was built on the cheap. The current rolling stock needs replacing. Unlike the last government owned "franchisee " virginontheeastcoast can't afford to cut maintenance to show how much money they could make as a state owned firm and with the current attitude of Network fail and HM Treasury why would anyone want to run the ECML?

 

I don't blame virginontheeastcoast for getting out. The train staff are very good...almost back up to the standards set by GNER.

 

Baz

[Coryton]

The ECML infrastructure was built on the cheap. The current rolling stock needs replacing.

 

And soon it will be.

[jjb1970]

Hi It might be a bit historic but I recall the fun and games when it was realised that trains paid for by you and me as tax payers were been dolled out cheaply to Roscos so we the taxpayer could hire back our own trains AND provide a profit for the shareholders. A former Intercity Director had Porterbook IIRC as a sort of management buy.  However when these businesses are boughtout by venture capitalists- I believe funded by overseas banks you can see how they were seen as an easy gold mine. more so when you  think the subsidies paid to TOCs  goes to funding stock contracts and where does that funding come from.. oh yes you and me!

 

I would think that ATW has repaid the 158s original build price several times over and still no sign of a trade in deal by the roscos. Cars have scrapage deals do trains ? The whole thing stinks and comments on patronage sit well. The days of violent change cannot be that far away as we slip backward into the mire.

Robert    

 

Given that there has been more than one inquiry into allegations of ROSCO profiteering and they were hate figures to some politicians (and parts of the media) for years the fact none of the allegations have stuck (despite an awful lot of effort by detractors) indicates that the ROSCOs are not the problem with our railways. Even as I write that I realise that my response is loaded by saying "not the problem with our railways" as it infers there is something fundamentally wrong. Whilst it is true that there are problems it is also true that our railways do a lot right and as a travelling customer I tend to have far more reason to be happy than to not be happy. Although I'll also say that when things go wrong they can go properly wrong.

[royaloak]

Virgin dont run the East Coast Mainline and they never have, the current franchise is run by Stagecoach who have allowed Virgin a 10% stake so they can use the Virgin name, Virgin have precisely zero input into any decisions about running the franchise.

[cheesysmith]

When I said use the profits from the profitable trains to subsidise the loss making one you would have to pay someone to run, I mean the profits from the selling of the most expensive paths, not the actual profits from the train operators. Saying to use the busses as a model, I mean that if it is profitable, and the operator says so, that train is independent subject to the operator meating minimum standards. When they buy a path, they have to run it for a minimum of 6 months. The best paths into London at peak would be much in demand, and I could see a bidding war for these. And the trains that you would have to pay the companies to run would be cheap because the train would have to pay for itself in those money making trains already run, so these would be bidding on the incremental cost. And the operator would want to run some of these anyway because it would allow them to use their own dedicated tickets and not have to share revenue.

 

So instead of having the gamble of the franchise bidding, with one operator running all services, we could actually have competition without the big payments to the DaFt, and instead of these we have the premiums comming from selling the best paths.

[rockershovel]

following on from the above, and reverting to my earlier post about the Dutch and German models of wind farm construction and operation, it's always seemed to me to be basic economics that the purpose of capital investment in fixed assets, was to provide a realistic return by operating those assets and providing for their ongoing renewal from revenue. 

 

the PROBLEM, as manifested in this country, is that franchised operators couldn't be trusted to DO that, preferring asset degradation and erosion in the interests of short-term return. This wasn't news, the Victorians knew all about this, and THEIR solution was to provide regulation and consolidation with real teeth, and independence from the political scene - the provision of public drainage and sewerage systems remain one of the great triumphs of that age. That's why the French pretty much had their TGV network ready to go when the TML was completed, while we had hardly started construction. It's why Dutch railways are somewhat grubby and slow, but frequent and cheap, which seems to suit their requirements quite well. 

a propose the dear old Grauniad, interesting piece HERE  http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-rupert-murdoch

[jjb1970]

I don't think problems with our railways (which as I say are better than credited for by many) can really be ascribed to TOCs, ROSCOs or even a lack of investment.

The ROSCOs and train financiers have delivered a steady stream of new trains and the rolling stock fleet is modern and efficient for the most part. Some franchise awards have been connected with huge rolling stock renewal programs. Huge sums were made available for electrification and the track infrastructure is already nationalised which is apparently the panacea for all railway ills according to some politicians.

I think most of the negative aspects of the system stem from DafT interference and micromanagement. The IEP is a text book case of dire procurement and the Southern trains debacle originated at DafT (aided by the RMT) for example. Politicians and DafT have the splendid wheeze of running a railway and hiding behind TOCs, ROSCOs etc whenever anything goes wrong. What I find odd is that despite the fact that DafT are so inept and the extreme improbability of them losing their baleful influence should the system be fully renationalised the idea of renationalisation is still so popular. I think an arms length BR still has merit but that's not what we'd get as Whitehall is too accustomed to holding the power to surrender it. The service delivery side of the railway works pretty well, despite DafT.

[Barry O]

 

the PROBLEM, as manifested in this country, is that franchised operators couldn't be trusted to DO that, preferring asset degradation and erosion in the interests of short-term return. This wasn't news, the Victorians knew all about this, and THEIR solution was to provide regulation and consolidation with real teeth, and independence from the political scene - the provision of public drainage and sewerage systems remain one of the great triumphs of that age. That's why the French pretty much had their TGV network ready to go when the TML was completed, while we had hardly started construction. It's why Dutch railways are somewhat grubby and slow, but frequent and cheap, which seems to suit their requirements quite well. a propose the dear old Grauniad, interesting piece HERE  http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-rupert-murdoch

The French don't worry about planning permission to build new lines, here because we don't like doing anything without everyone agreeing to it first , it takes ages to get anything done...HS1 and HS2 being good examples.

 

DaFT think they still "run" a nationalised railway. They have neither the knowledge or (in some instances) the technical and financial skills to do so. Network Fail are similar, I understand they are very difficult to get along with and quite sure they are always right.

Lots of good ex BR trained people are now running Railways elsewhere in the world as they weren't wanted here.

 

And the Grauniad has never been the same since they got rid of the spellungg mistooks

 

Baz

 

Baz

[jamie92208]

The French don't worry about planning permission to build new lines, here because we don't like doing anything without everyone agreeing to it first , it takes ages to get anything done...HS1 and HS2 being good examples.

 

DaFT think they still "run" a nationalised railway. They have neither the knowledge or (in some instances) the technical and financial skills to do so. Network Fail are similar, I understand they are very difficult to get along with and quite sure they are always right.

Lots of good ex BR trained people are now running Railways elsewhere in the world as they weren't wanted here.

 

And the Grauniad has never been the same since they got rid of the spellungg mistooks

 

Baz

 

Baz

 

The French have actually had quite a few planning permission problems, funnily enough from both sides of the coin.  There were protests from Amiens that the line to the tunnel didn't go past their city but went north via Lille.   However there have been serious protests and permission problems regarding the proposed line from the Marseilles area along to Nice, particularly in some wine growing areas.      I believe that the German system is even worse than ours due to the  way their constitution works as it gives huge powers to the Lande (States) to counterbalance central authority.

 

Jamie

[rockershovel]

Discarding hard-earned experience, the moment the “suits” deem them unprofitable, is hardly confined to railways. Statoil and Eni are world class players, but where are BNOC now? BP add insult to injury by their “patriot of the world alone” attitude.

 

This is a good example of British management looking to America. NASA cleared out the whole Space Shuttle team, in some cases within hours of the last launch...

Edited December 1, 2017 by rockershovel

[lmsforever]

I can see sons of Railtrack reappearing on our network if every franchise has a different infraco looking after the track etc this will lead to higher prices for signalling ,track and labour plus overall management is working in isolation to other similar companies.NR has its faults but it works to a unified standard and can if allowed use its purchasing power to lower costs (if they try) and give a high overall service to the network. Remember the idea of splitting track maintainence and operators came from Brussels and how many railways abroad followed it to the letter unlike our government.Our leaders love to come up with mind blowing ideas that come from civil servants who are transient in that they move from department to department and then claim great knowledge in the current office they are.I bet this will never happen as some other idea will take over from this one as to continue our lives in this wonderful country.

[62613]

 Remember the idea of splitting track maintainence and operators came from Brussels and how many railways abroad followed it to the letter unlike our government.Our leaders love to come up with mind blowing ideas that come from civil servants who are transient in that they move from department to department and then claim great knowledge in the current office they are.

The directive that separated the infrastructure from operation was sponsored by the UK, to pave the way for privatisation. It's only in the UK, I think, that complete separation took place; I think the directive as promulgated only called for separate accounting of infrastructure and operating costs. Only our civil service seemed to 'gold plate' EU directives; also for an EU directive to become law, it has to be presented as a bill in parliament and properly scrutinised by MPs. That Parliament so failed in its duty to do so is the fault of allof us; we get the politicians and civil servants we deserve

[enginelane]

Looking through the thread it seems that the nation that fathered the steam engine in the form that grew into a transport system capable of moving goods and passengers around a country is no longer capable of running trains, commissioning new trains or looking after its infrastructure. No longer able to quote sensible prices for commissioning new projects nor the ability to train sufficient numbers of staff to carry out projects such as electrification etc. What a sad state of affairs.

[Dunsignalling]

The directive that separated the infrastructure from operation was sponsored by the UK, to pave the way for privatisation. It's only in the UK, I think, that complete separation took place; I think the directive as promulgated only called for separate accounting of infrastructure and operating costs. Only our civil service seemed to 'gold plate' EU directives; also for an EU directive to become law, it has to be presented as a bill in parliament and properly scrutinised by MPs. That Parliament so failed in its duty to do so is the fault of allof us; we get the politicians and civil servants we deserve

The UK civil service is renowned for its ability to turn two sides of A4 emanating from Brussels into something the size of a phone book.

 

And we are supposed to suffer from low productivity in this country.............

Edited December 1, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Reorte]

Looking through the thread it seems that the nation that fathered the steam engine in the form that grew into a transport system capable of moving goods and passengers around a country is no longer capable of running trains, commissioning new trains or looking after its infrastructure. No longer able to quote sensible prices for commissioning new projects nor the ability to train sufficient numbers of staff to carry out projects such as electrification etc. What a sad state of affairs.

Yet the trains still run and get people from A to B. Not always perfectly (rather a lot of standing on the way to Warley last week), but they do what they need to do and will no doubt carry on doing so, with the odd hiccup, even if the big high-profile projects falter.

[62613]

Looking through the thread it seems that the nation that fathered the steam engine in the form that grew into a transport system capable of moving goods and passengers around a country is no longer capable of running trains, commissioning new trains or looking after its infrastructure. No longer able to quote sensible prices for commissioning new projects nor the ability to train sufficient numbers of staff to carry out projects such as electrification etc. What a sad state of affairs.

Not just railways; most companies that ran apprenticeship schemes discontinued them in the 1980s; after all, we weren't going to need engineers and scientists in a service-led economy, were we? Besides paying the costs of apprenticeships affected the bottom line; and 'If we need more staff, we can always poach them from another company/ abroad can't we?