ECML franchise to be broucht back under Public Ownership

[Coryton]

東

(Azuma) = East

 

That Japanese "letter" (kanji) does mean East (as in Tokyo - Eastern Capital)

 

But the usual pronunciation is Higari not Azuma (e.g. in various Japanese stations with East in the name).

 

Kanji generally have more than one pronunciation, though Azuma appears to be a particularly obscure one for East.

 

For some reason, Google Translate gives Azmua for East but it's being somewhat misleading.

[Coryton]

Not only that, but there are key aspects of the franchise which must be adhered to. The livery, for one thing. I also don’t recall reading about any McDonalds or Subway franchises which substantially change the nature of the product offered, as happened with the recent timetable changes - which appear to have been defined unilaterally, with no substantive oversight by the relevant franchise authority (in context, the relevant government department) and at least in part, in order to materially effect the way in which the product was delivered (in context, manning levels).

 

They appear rather, to be Concessions by which the right to run whatever services they see fit, in whatever manner they think best are granted

 

Concession might be a better name, but I don't agree with your description at all.

 

They have never been permitted to run whatever services they see fit (we would have a very different railway if they did) and I think these days there isn't much scope to do things in whatever manner they think best either.

 

Franchises are now highly prescriptive, or indeed just directly controlled by the DfT.

 

For example, so far as I know the move to widespread DOO comes directly from the DfT, not some wheeze thought up by railway companies to save money.

 

From what I've read here, things would probably work better if there was less oversight by the DfT not more.

[jjb1970]

Concession might be a better name, but I don't agree with your description at all.

 

They have never been permitted to run whatever services they see fit (we would have a very different railway if they did) and I think these days there isn't much scope to do things in whatever manner they think best either.

 

Franchises are now highly prescriptive, or indeed just directly controlled by the DfT.

 

For example, so far as I know the move to widespread DOO comes directly from the DfT, not some wheeze thought up by railway companies to save money.

 

From what I've read here, things would probably work better if there was less oversight by the DfT not more.

 

Ssssshhh!!!! You're not meant to point things like that out, people might start getting the impression we have a nationalised railway in effect.

[rockershovel]

Concession might be a better name, but I don't agree with your description at all.

 

They have never been permitted to run whatever services they see fit (we would have a very different railway if they did) and I think these days there isn't much scope to do things in whatever manner they think best either.

 

Franchises are now highly prescriptive, or indeed just directly controlled by the DfT.

 

For example, so far as I know the move to widespread DOO comes directly from the DfT, not some wheeze thought up by railway companies to save money.

 

From what I've read here, things would probably work better if there was less oversight by the DfT not more.

It’s a complex question, isn’t it? If DOO is to be the standard, it needs to be on the basis that it complies with legal HSE requirements. DfT and hence, HMG have also been brought to the realisation that a significant level of control is necessary, as the legislation of 1923, 1927 and 1948 recognised. The timetable and ECML episodes appear to demonstrate that “the market” simply cannot be allowed more discretion than absolutely necessary.

 

There is also the chronic problem that periodic franchise changes disrupt training and unsettle staff, just as “framework” contracts do. If “bringing in more effective, efficient management” meant that, all would be well, but the actual effect seems to be excessive focus on shareholder dividends and executive bonuses, and “efficiency” as a euphemism for cutting employee conditions.

 

We need a more focussed system, focussed on actual services, providing a defined level of return with a realistic level of risk for the contractors. That, or we need to be rid of the contractors entirely.

Edited June 23, 2018 by rockershovel

[melmerby]

Not only that, but there are key aspects of the franchise which must be adhered to. The livery, for one thing. I also don’t recall reading about any McDonalds or Subway franchises which substantially change the nature of the product offered, as happened with the recent timetable changes - which appear to have been defined unilaterally, with no substantive oversight by the relevant franchise authority (in context, the relevant government department) and at least in part, in order to materially effect the way in which the product was delivered (in context, manning levels).

 

They appear rather, to be Concessions by which the right to run whatever services they see fit, in whatever manner they think best are granted

As I said in an earlier post , they do not conform to the normal concept of franchises which is a third party operating a business just like part of the main company.

e.g. In Keswick there is a "Costa" but it is not run by Costa but by a company called "Purple Bricks"(!) but everything about it is pure Costa apart from the till receipts which say "Purple Bricks T/A Costa" That is a what a Franchise is.

 

The TOCs are really concessions just the like beauty companies (and others) in department stores, selling their product in someone else's retail space.

 

Keith

[jjb1970]

From what I've read here, things would probably work better if there was less oversight by the DfT not more.

 

Pretty much sums up the fundamental problem with our railways in a single sentence.

 

I must admit I regularly thank my deity for the fact that in the shipping industry we're spared from DafT by having the MCA between us and them and also the fact that shipping companies can tell DafT and HMG to clear off by just reflagging at the drop of a hat keeps them from getting too uppity.

[Coach bogie]

The first change I have noticed is the ticket prices appear to have gone up. When the Dec 7 tickets became available yesterday, my wife's ticket which has been £42.55 for most of the year under Virgin is now £60.05 with LNER. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

 

Mike Wiltshire

[rockershovel]

As I said in an earlier post , they do not conform to the normal concept of franchises which is a third party operating a business just like part of the main company.

e.g. In Keswick there is a "Costa" but it is not run by Costa but by a company called "Purple Bricks"(!) but everything about it is pure Costa apart from the till receipts which say "Purple Bricks T/A Costa" That is a what a Franchise is.

 

The TOCs are really concessions just the like beauty companies (and others) in department stores, selling their product in someone else's retail space.

 

Keith

Ultimately, this isn’t a question with a single answer. What they (TOCs) REALLY are, is the long(ish) term outcome of a process undertaken in great haste, for a range of (sometimes incompatible) ideological reasons, by an administration which wasn’t competent to undertake the task, and had no clear vision of the intended outcome.

 

Add in two decades-plus of administrations in similar vein, operators with their OWN priorities, the internal pressures and trends present within any organisation of that size, a general financial collapse and two decades of social change, and here we are...

Edited June 24, 2018 by rockershovel

[Zomboid]

As I said in an earlier post , they do not conform to the normal concept of franchises which is a third party operating a business just like part of the main company.

e.g. In Keswick there is a "Costa" but it is not run by Costa but by a company called "Purple Bricks"(!) but everything about it is pure Costa apart from the till receipts which say "Purple Bricks T/A Costa" That is a what a Franchise is.

 

The TOCs are really concessions just the like beauty companies (and others) in department stores, selling their product in someone else's retail space.

 

Keith

And the Overground in London is (or has been) described as a "concession" but it's actually a franchise.

[Peter Crawford]

Prices tend to be around 150% of VTEC prices and the website is definitely a cut and paste job. They also used to do proper suppers/dinners on the down expresses between 1700 and 1900 but not anymore, just the daytime sandwiches. No more are the cooked breakfasts, in favour of 'bubble and squeak' that is made in a microwave instead of in an onboard kitchen.

 

The best name could be 'VTECheap with Added Fares' or similar. East Coast was a decent outfit, but the new LNER is not working. At the very least you could put 'Azumas' into Garter Blue, 91s in Apple Green and HSTs in 'Silver Link' and name them 'Sir Nigel Gresley' and 'Flying Scotsman', 'West Riding Pullman' etc. It would certainly get the railway enthusiasts to get onboard or buy platform tickets and... trainspot.

 

I did a price enquiry and I'm paying MORE money. What used to happen was that you paid 'X' for the one way fare and the return was nominal, e.g. 1/5x. The total would be 6/5x. Now I'm paying 2x

[pete_mcfarlane]

But it's publicly owned so it must be cheaper.........

[The Stationmaster]

Prices tend to be around 150% of VTEC prices and the website is definitely a cut and paste job. They also used to do proper suppers/dinners on the down expresses between 1700 and 1900 but not anymore, just the daytime sandwiches. No more are the cooked breakfasts, in favour of 'bubble and squeak' that is made in a microwave instead of in an onboard kitchen.

 

The best name could be 'VTECheap with Added Fares' or similar. East Coast was a decent outfit, but the new LNER is not working. At the very least you could put 'Azumas' into Garter Blue, 91s in Apple Green and HSTs in 'Silver Link' and name them 'Sir Nigel Gresley' and 'Flying Scotsman', 'West Riding Pullman' etc. It would certainly get the railway enthusiasts to get onboard or buy platform tickets and... trainspot.

 

I did a price enquiry and I'm paying MORE money. What used to happen was that you paid 'X' for the one way fare and the return was nominal, e.g. 1/5x. The total would be 6/5x. Now I'm paying 2x

 

Once upon a time on the railways of Great Britain which were state owned the ordinary return fare was twice the single fare for the very simple reason that the distance travelled was twice as much, Various sorts of reduced fare return tickets such as Day, or Off-Peak, or Evening, Return tickets offered a discounted fare for a return journey while Season Tickets also offered substantial discounts.  It all began to change in 1975 when BR dropped charging passenger fares on a mileage basis and went in for what was then known as 'Selective Pricing'.

Ultimately, this isn’t a question with a single answer. What they (TOCs) REALLY are, is the long(ish) term outcome of a process undertaken in great haste, for a range of (sometimes incompatible) ideological reasons, by an administration which wasn’t competent to undertake the task, and had no clear vision of the intended outcome.

 

Add in two decades-plus of administrations in similar vein, operators with their OWN priorities, the internal pressures and trends present within any organisation of that size, a general financial collapse and two decades of social change, and here we are...

 

The idea as such isn't necessarily a bad one, especially if you listened to The Treasury whizz kids who devised some of it and of course a similar model has been used, and is used, elsewhere in the world albeit often with detail differences.  And as a matter of fact, to say that it was undertaken in great haste is incorrect, the system took time to develop and the actual process of letting the franchises took over two years.

 

The problem, where it has been a problem, is that we are now far removed, thanks to the politicians, from the system which enabled franchising to work free of political interference or free of Civil Service interference.

[Coryton]

I did a price enquiry and I'm paying MORE money. What used to happen was that you paid 'X' for the one way fare and the return was nominal, e.g. 1/5x. The total would be 6/5x. Now I'm paying 2x

 

Are these advance fares or walk-up fares?

 

I thought that walk-up fares could only be changed at certain points in the year, but so far as I know advance fares are only sold as singles so I'm confused.

[eastwestdivide]

東

(Azuma) = East

Although on the train itself, they wrote it in hiragana characters あずま

[Coryton]

Although on the train itself, they wrote it in hiragana characters あずま

 

But not - it seems - on the coach in the recent photograph.

[rodent279]

At the very least you could put 'Azumas' into Garter Blue, 91s in Apple Green and HSTs in 'Silver Link' and name them 'Sir Nigel Gresley' and 'Flying Scotsman', 'West Riding Pullman' etc. It would certainly get the railway enthusiasts to get onboard or buy platform tickets and... trainspot.

 

No, please..... Let's design our own liveries, not just look back wistfully into the past.

[Zomboid]

If the original LNER were still in existence, there would be no chance that they'd be using 1930s paint schemes as we hurtle towards the 2020s.

[Legend]

We would probably have a debate as to whether they were lined or not!

[Steadfast]

So the government will claim the public owned LNER can turn a profit. But reason is because they've reduced costs and hiked fares. Something a private company could have done too. And then got bad press/twitter-age

 

Jo

[Ron Ron Ron]

So the government will claim the public owned LNER can turn a profit. But reason is because they've reduced costs and hiked fares......

 

 

....and no high premium payments to be made.

 

p.s. I rather think it will be "others" claiming, or celebrating that the so called "publicly owned" LNER can turn a profit.

 

 

.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[Peter Crawford]

Are these advance fares or walk-up fares?

 

I thought that walk-up fares could only be changed at certain points in the year, but so far as I know advance fares are only sold as singles so I'm confused.

 

They're 'Off Peak' and 'Anytime' tickets online.

 

No, please..... Let's design our own liveries, not just look back wistfully into the past.

 

That's also ok... A livery design contest, anyone?

[Coryton]

They're 'Off Peak' and 'Anytime' tickets online.

 

Very interesting. I didn't know that walk-up fares could be changed with a franchise change - I thought they could only be done three times a year (January and with the timetable changes?)

 

If I understand these things correctly (and quite possibly I don't) the off peak and anytime fares are the old business return (or some such) and open return respectively and not regulated, and the super off peak return is the old saver return and thus regulated. If that's gone up too then things are even more interesting.

 

Edited to add:

From https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/east-coast-train-virgin-tickets-14666219

 

Will there be any changes to ticket prices?

There will be no immediate changes to ticket prices. Any future changes in price will be in line with normal market practice.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Coryton

[009 micro modeller]

So the government will claim the public owned LNER can turn a profit. But reason is because they've reduced costs and hiked fares. Something a private company could have done too. And then got bad press/twitter-age

 

Jo

Or, on the other hand, the government can claim that the publicly owned company is inefficient and costs passengers more (because they've put the prices up) and then reprivatise it, and then renationalise it again when the franchise holder can't pay the premiums, and... (repeat ad nauseam)

[Peter Crawford]

I second 009 micro's views. The fares under VTEC were nominal on the return, but the government re-aligning it to be just under double the VTEC return is the opposite way of doing it. For instance, if a One Way costs £15 and VTEC's return supplement is £5, then I pay £20. LNER should now charge £10 one way instead of leaving dis-satisfied customers to pay £30, a 150% price hike.

[rockershovel]

Is the ECML “publicly owned”, or just managed pro tem by a public body? Did VTEC actually PAY for new rolling stock, are there finance agreements, who ACTUALLY owns the new stock?

 

The business about increased fares, sounds like ad-hoc cost and pricing control of the worst sort.

 

I’m afraid that I get a strong impression that DfT were not prepared for this.