ECML franchise to be broucht back under Public Ownership

[Ron Ron Ron]

I think Rockershovel was talking about the 'Free Market' in general terms. The reason for the quotes is because the market isn't free; it never has been. For it to be so, all the players in the market would have to have the same access to the same information at the same time, in order to act in a rational way. That clearly doesn't happen.

 

Government regulation, in general. Which regulations would you get rid of?

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that there isn't and probably can't realistically be a truly open market for passenger rail services, or more importantly the rail infrastructure.

The point is that when there are areas that present an opportunity for private companies to provide good value and bring commercial efficiencies and discipline into play, they have in many instances been hamstrung by the system and meddling government departments.

The lack of a clear strategic view is largely to blame for this.

[locoholic]

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that there isn't and probably can't realistically be a truly open market for passenger rail services, or more importantly the rail infrastructure.

The point is that when there are areas that present an opportunity for private companies to provide good value and bring commercial efficiencies and discipline into play, they have in many instances been hamstrung by the system and meddling government departments.

The lack of a clear strategic view is largely to blame for this.

The free market is supposed to dispense with the need for a "clear strategic view" - that's the whole point of it. You are advocating something that you apparently do not understand.

[rockershovel]

Rockshovel,

I think it's you who has made it "political" and expressing a very polarised view.

I would emphatically disagree with that statement. I’ve been trying hard to avoid any such accusation.

 

What I WOULD say, is that from observation of the world as it turns, governments ALWAYS become involved st some stage. The Deepwater Horizon episode was, on one level, a demonstration of the point at which US federal policy and commercial goals and practices intersected.

 

There is a fundamental question, to wit, what are the railways FOR? What purpose do they serve, and who benefits?

 

We once HAD a substantially free-market rail system, and the result was the Grouping and other legislation which created London Transport and to some extent, restricted the practice of railway companies building locomotives for sale. We then had a regulated free-market system. It also produced a range of legislation over time regarding safety, precisely because those issues were not otherwise covered.

 

After thirty years of war and depression, we passed to a state-owned, state-managed system and now we are back to a system which as a number of others have observed, there seems to be a lack of clarity of thinking regarding the function and purpose of the rail network, with a consequent lack of clarity of thinking about the nature of the interface and management structure.

[rockershovel]

Since leasing has been mentioned, I’ll offer the observation that one of my sons has a leased car, but I don’t.

 

The reasons are simple.

 

His mileage is fairly high, much of it work-related. He can’t really afford to be off the road for any length of time. His employer offers him a favourable scheme, and he regards it as a good way to manage the whole-life ownership cost of running a car.

 

I do a very variable mileage, sometimes work-related, often not. I tow a caravan or trailer at times. Mostly I don’t worry about being off the road, there are other ways to skin THAT cat if it isn’t critical from day to day. There have been times when I have simply sold it and done without, if I have been mostly out of the country.

 

Define the problem, define your goals and a particular solution will tend to appear.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that there isn't and probably can't realistically be a truly open market for passenger rail services, or more importantly the rail infrastructure.

The point is that when there are areas that present an opportunity for private companies to provide good value and bring commercial efficiencies and discipline into play, they have in many instances been hamstrung by the system and meddling government departments.

The lack of a clear strategic view is largely to blame for this.

 

And oddly - in view of 'Rockershovel's' comments it was tried with civil engineering on the former BR network and and in quite a lot of cases really didn't work at all well.

[rockershovel]

And oddly - in view of 'Rockershovel's' comments it was tried with civil engineering on the former BR network and and in quite a lot of cases really didn't work at all well.

Well, yes. There is always a problem with any sort of contracting, which is that it only works well if the goals and constraints are sufficiently well defined. There is a general problem with any sort of rail work, in that it involves a high level of night work, travelling at short notice, standing by, weekend work (often with a lack of work during the week), short shifts and so forth. Contractors labour don’t like these, because they tend to impact on free time and nett earnings. Contractors don’t like them because it creates problems if utilisation rates for specialist staff and plant. Add in fluctuating workloads and a complex, expensive training structure which is often pushed onto the workforce’s expense, and there are a lot of problems.

Edited June 26, 2018 by rockershovel

[The Stationmaster]

Well, yes. There is always a problem with any sort of contracting, which is that it only works well if the goals and constraints are sufficiently well defined. There is a general problem with any sort of rail work, in that it involves a high level of night work, travelling at short notice, standing by, weekend work (often with a lack of work during the week), short shifts and so forth. Contractors labour don’t like these, because they tend to impact on free time and nett earnings. Contractors don’t like them because it creates problems if utilisation rates for specialist staff and plant. Add in fluctuating workloads and a complex, expensive training structure which is often pushed onto the workforce’s expense, and there are a lot of problems.

 

But even where it wasn't 'contracting' in the normal sense of the term but a transfer of responsibility it often turned into a total shambles.

[PenrithBeacon]

Well, yes. There is always a problem with any sort of contracting, which is that it only works well if the goals and constraints are sufficiently well defined. There is a general problem with any sort of rail work, in that it involves a high level of night work, travelling at short notice, standing by, weekend work (often with a lack of work during the week), short shifts and so forth. Contractors labour don’t like these, because they tend to impact on free time and nett earnings. Contractors don’t like them because it creates problems if utilisation rates for specialist staff and plant. Add in fluctuating workloads and a complex, expensive training structure which is often pushed onto the workforce’s expense, and there are a lot of problems.

None of which are new and all of which were resolved by previous generations. Edited June 26, 2018 by PenrithBeacon

[rockershovel]

Re the two previous posts, the answer is really quite simple; make enough money available to justify the commitment, accompanied by meaningful sanctions to restrict or control the use of that plant and resources outside working hours.

 

Railways managed their workforces and contractors by providing a realistic prospect of earning a worthwhile return, coupled with a realistic prospect of effective sanctions against those who didn’t abide by the system. It wasn’t rocket science.

 

The problems set in when privatisation fragmented the system and focussed on the cost of individual tasks. Suddenly Jarvis were everywhere, until the Potters Bar disaster led to their equally sudden disappearance from the scene, followed a few years later by a collapse into administration caused by over-borrowing.

 

Contractors are the least of your problems, provided only that they are managed within a robust system, by a client with sufficient knowledge of what they are contracting out. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to be used as cash cows by speculators, which is what eventually drove Jarvis into administration (I had experience of this sort of process in the mid-80s). Nor should they be allowed to erode working, training and procurement standards for purely commercial reasons, which was the cause of the Potters Bar incident.

 

They are good servants, but like most good servants, tend to make bad masters.

Edited June 27, 2018 by rockershovel

[Hobby]

 

 

TUPE has been covered elsewhere, with the observation from a number of contributors that whatever happens at handover, the effect over time is invariably progressive erosion of pay, conditions and training.

 

 

I've been involved in a franchise change over and that has not happened. Inevitably the new company has looked at the jobs (mainly management) and pruned where it feels it can but as regards the three things mentioned there nothing has changed. 

[Hobby]

There is also the chronic problem that periodic franchise changes disrupt training and unsettle staff,

 

They only do that if the DfT insist on the new franchise introduced DOO (as per Northern), otherwise 99% of staff just continue as normal...

 

Just think, if it'd still been BR we'd have had a national strike about DOO rather than just limited to one or two TOCs... Divide and rule works very well...

[jjb1970]

Ultimately pay and conditions are determined by a range of factors, one of course being demand for and availability of particular skills and expertise. And then there is the calculation of whether it makes business sense to automate or use other techniques to reduce head count.

[Coryton]

Just think, if it'd still been BR we'd have had a national strike about DOO rather than just limited to one or two TOCs... Divide and rule works very well...

 

It might have worked well at reducing the impact of strikes but I think it also worked extremely well in increasing drivers' wages by playing TOCs off against each other in a way that wouldn't have been possible under BR.

[APOLLO]

Govia Thameslink could be stripped of franchise due to sustained disruption Transport Secretary Chris Grayling is understood to have given rail operator two weeks to improve, otherwise government will take control

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/govia-thameslink-franchise-chris-grayling-disruption-england-a8425216.html

 

Interesting.

 

Brit15

[Legend]

And it will be improved with the Govt taking control?

[lmsforever]

Surely Grayling should be getting the RMT into Whitehall for urgent talks to stop the destruction of the franchise,if a govt company takes over will the union still persist in their actions.Grayling is playing to the crowd in this and has to start talking to the parties involved in a manner befitting his office and also to curb the DFT and their activities which are confrontational and show a lack of ability to do their job.

[russ p]

Part of the problem is passengers not wanting to travel in the grayling imposed 700s!

[Ken.W]

It might have worked well at reducing the impact of strikes but I think it also worked extremely well in increasing drivers' wages by playing TOCs off against each other in a way that wouldn't have been possible under BR.

 

Erm no, most of the substantial increases in driver's pay have been a result of productivity restructurings, other increases have been generally in line with that of other staff.

 

In the case of EC (the subject here) this included;

Total single manning on high speed running (previously 2 drivers for above 110 and originally above 100 mph)

Elimination of all shift allowances and enhancements, and DOO payments

Sundays becoming part of the ordinary working week with no enhanced rate (was previously overtime)

Much greater flexibility in daily rostering changes

Changes to more flexible PNB (break) requirements

Remote book on / off (a phone in the S.O.P to York Control, instead of a T.C.S. being there)

 

Just the main points I can think of atm

This was within a couple of years of GNER taking over.

 

Regarding the post above re staff conditions being largely unaffected by franchise changes, in the short period under VTEC there's been very substantial changes in roles and staffing of on-board services, with Guards becoming 'Train Managers' and also responsible for managing catering on top of their train duties and ticketing, and changes and substantial cuts to the on-board crews

Edited July 1, 2018 by Ken.W

[Ken.W]

And it will be improved with the Govt taking control?

 

Aren't they already?

 

It was their DfT which imposed the introduction of further DOO operaration, knoowing full well what the RMT responce would be

 

Why do people think so many new franchisees are so keen to introduce DOO operation knowing what the consequenses will be?

Answer; they don't have any choice!

A manufactured dispute!!!

At a recent meeting of a well known railway society I attended with a Northern manager as guest speaker, he admitted it's a franchise imposed commitment to have 50% route DOO operation, this dispite most of their routes having unmannned stations and paytrains!!

 

Now back to the (not so) sad demise of VTEC perhaps?

[lmsforever]

The July issue of Modern Railways has an in depth aricle by Roger Ford on the failed ECML franchise, he goes right back to the begining and shows how the overbidding and lack of NR upgrade work although Railtrack were culpable in a big way to the problems experienced .It is a sobering read and shows how the companies struggled .GNER had problems beyond their control but before then they were starting to see problems.Even the govt operation was suffering towards the end ,they returned profits but with no investment a requirement of a franchise. In 2013 Karen Boswell was worried about lack of action from the DFT on improvements and set up a team to develop a five year plan to 2019.The DFT came up with a whole load of improvements in a five year programme but this was dropped one year into Virgins franchise.VTEC reported in 2015/2016 reported  revenue growthbut cautioned that the future profitability was at risk due to changes in revenue in the future.The franchise would meet its obligations but VTEC was burning down its parent companies support so the end was inevitable.You cant keep on like this and the 2020 franchise has to be one that will work but from Graylings comments I do not think that he and the DFT have a clue what to do except that high level payments must continue,what a way to run a railway,think that's been said before.  

[lmsforever]

And it will be improved with the Govt taking control?

 

No !!!!!!!!!!

[rockershovel]

I've been involved in a franchise change over and that has not happened. Inevitably the new company has looked at the jobs (mainly management) and pruned where it feels it can but as regards the three things mentioned there nothing has changed.

 

TUPE, TUPE, TUPE.... TUPE is all very well for directly employed staff but it provides no protection whatsoever for the large number of contract employees, most of whom (despite the constant propaganda about “preferring flexibility” from various sources) derive no benefit whatsoever from their status, are disadvantaged by it in a range of ways and would give it up tomorrow, given the chance.

 

Even under TUPE, constant change creates constant opportunities to restructure and eliminate or downgrade jobs

Edited July 1, 2018 by rockershovel

[Clearwater]

https://www.stagecoach.com/~/media/Files/S/Stagecoach-Group/Attachments/media/publication-financial-reports/preliminary-results-presentation-28-06-2018.pdf

 

An interesting read. Details their losses on the contract.

[rockershovel]

The July issue of Modern Railways has an in depth aricle by Roger Ford on the failed ECML franchise, he goes right back to the begining and shows how the overbidding and lack of NR upgrade work although Railtrack were culpable in a big way to the problems experienced .It is a sobering read and shows how the companies struggled .GNER had problems beyond their control but before then they were starting to see problems.Even the govt operation was suffering towards the end ,they returned profits but with no investment a requirement of a franchise. In 2013 Karen Boswell was worried about lack of action from the DFT on improvements and set up a team to develop a five year plan to 2019.The DFT came up with a whole load of improvements in a five year programme but this was dropped one year into Virgins franchise.VTEC reported in 2015/2016 reported  revenue growthbut cautioned that the future profitability was at risk due to changes in revenue in the future.The franchise would meet its obligations but VTEC was burning down its parent companies support so the end was inevitable.You cant keep on like this and the 2020 franchise has to be one that will work but from Graylings comments I do not think that he and the DFT have a clue what to do except that high level payments must continue,what a way to run a railway,think that's been said before.

 

Indeed. Major issues of this sort are never simple, and they invariably develop over long periods of time, which usually means that the evidence is there to be seen, long before the will to recognise it and/or the unavoidable crisis develops

[Zomboid]

Govia Thameslink could be stripped of franchise due to sustained disruption Transport Secretary Chris Grayling is understood to have given rail operator two weeks to improve, otherwise government will take control

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/govia-thameslink-franchise-chris-grayling-disruption-england-a8425216.html

 

Interesting.

 

Brit15

 

Proof that the DfT wheeze of privatising the blame has worked really well, as there's no mention of the fact that GTR have no decision making power and that the government already wholly in control.

I wonder if anyone will bid for another of these DfT management contracts after this shambles.