The One Show and East Coast

[lmsforever]

The One Show has weighed into the the franchise arguments about East Coast Trains even Wolmar was interviewed seem to be in favour of keeping it in public hands ,very inconclusive segment as usual by the BBC .What are your thoughts about this subject.

[Luke Piewalker]

I'm sure whichever way it goes, it will somehow end up costing us more...

[peanuts]

I'm sure whichever way it goes, it will somehow end up costing us more...

and someone probable a foreign company will make bundle of cash whilst not doing anything to improve things 

[phil-b259]

To be honest as soon as the Conservatives regained power it was obvious it would only be a matter of time before it got re-franchised. Unfortunately from a Tory point of view things aren't working out as they hoped - not only is the current East coast team doing a good job but the monies they are generating for the treasury are acutely embarrassing and shows up the Tory's lies that the private sector is allways better than the public sector. Note - the term always is deliberate because in some situations the private sector is best - its the assumption this must be the situation in all cases I take issue with.

 

What the current East coast operation shows is the reality, (not ideology) where given the necessary freedom to manage things properly without political interference (ironically something the way the UKs franchised railway operation enforces) public sector operations can be just as good as private ones - certainly in terms of day to day operations. Remember when the railways were franchised first time round, the private sector was told there was lots of scope for 'cutting waste' and 'removing inefficiencies' - only for several to almost go bust because as it turned out BR in the early 90s was a very efficient organisation and the supposed 'waste' didn't really exist.

 

Driving everything of course is the basic fact we have an general election due in a couple of years and it is by no means certain who will win it. In shades of 1994, the current administration are desperate to get East Coast into private hands - if only to spite any incoming labour administration (just as Railtrack was floated first rather than last so as to ensure privatisation couldn't easily be undone by the incoming Labour administration in 97 (though you could argue that by then Blair had ditched any real intention to do so anyway).

 

Its this latter aspect that is perhaps the most odious of the lot because every single governmental decision made with short term political interests at heart has proven, in the end to be a bad deal for the taxpayer / traveller / end user and to be honest I don't see East Coast being any different.

 

So ultimately we can debate the pros and cons for as long as we like, the simple fact is it won't make any difference whatsoever. The decision has been made - get the East Coast franchise back into the private sector by the next election and stuff the consequences.

[Oakydoke]

The point was made at the end of the One Show feature, that the main reasons for the East Coast profit being so high were that unlike a normal franchise, they have no obligation or commitment to invest their profits in improvements to the service, or infrastructure and they aren't required to pay the government a Premium or fee for being able to operate the franchise.

 

The programme also failed to point out that the two previous private franchise operators, we're thrown off (failed) not because privatisation failed, but because the franchise process had failed by encouraging bidders to grossly overbid in order to win.

 

The passenger satisfaction survey results are rather telling, being similar to (in fact slightly worst than) when NEX were the incumbent.

[The Lurker]

To be honest as soon as the Conservatives regained power it was obvious it would only be a matter of time before it got re-franchised. Unfortunately from a Tory point of view things aren't working out as they hoped - not only is the current East coast team doing a good job but the monies they are generating for the treasury are acutely embarrassing and shows up the Tory's lies that the private sector is allways better than the public sector. Note - the term always is deliberate because in some situations the private sector is best - its the assumption this must be the situation in all cases I take issue with.

 

What the current East coast operation shows is the reality, (not ideology) where given the necessary freedom to manage things properly without political interference (ironically something the way the UKs franchised railway operation enforces) public sector operations can be just as good as private ones - certainly in terms of day to day operations. Remember when the railways were franchised first time round, the private sector was told there was lots of scope for 'cutting waste' and 'removing inefficiencies' - only for several to almost go bust because as it turned out BR in the early 90s was a very efficient organisation and the supposed 'waste' didn't really exist.

 

Driving everything of course is the basic fact we have an general election due in a couple of years and it is by no means certain who will win it. In shades of 1994, the current administration are desperate to get East Coast into private hands - if only to spite any incoming labour administration (just as Railtrack was floated first rather than last so as to ensure privatisation couldn't easily be undone by the incoming Labour administration in 97 (though you could argue that by then Blair had ditched any real intention to do so anyway).

 

Its this latter aspect that is perhaps the most odious of the lot because every single governmental decision made with short term political interests at heart has proven, in the end to be a bad deal for the taxpayer / traveller / end user and to be honest I don't see East Coast being any different.

 

So ultimately we can debate the pros and cons for as long as we like, the simple fact is it won't make any difference whatsoever. The decision has been made - get the East Coast franchise back into the private sector by the next election and stuff the consequences.

Good to see that there is absolutely nothing political in this post.

 

What you term "Tory lies" is a belief that the state run organisations tend to be bloated and inefficient.

 

East Coast has been run as if it were a private enterprise along the lines of other franchises so that it could be re-privatised. This was the intention when it was taken back into nationalised hands. So perhaps it is not a surprise that it has been run competently.

 

Maybe we've stumbled on a model? Run it as if it were private so that it doesn't act as a drain on the public purse?

[Ron Ron Ron]

East Coast has been run as if it were a private enterprise along the lines of other franchises so that it could be re-privatised........

......Maybe we've stumbled on a model? Run it as if it were private so that it doesn't act as a drain on the public purse?

 

That's the difference between being "nationalised" and being an independent commercial company that happens to be owned by the state.

 

However, as has been pointed out above, the picture of relative success is largely false as EC have not been subjected to the financial requirements that would normally apply.

It has to be remembered that the "premiums" paid by the TOC's to the government, become indirect investment in the railway through Network Rail.

As far as I'm aware, EC has paid nothing other than track access charges? However, I'm sure the profit they've made will still go back into the state pot.

 

Idealistically, an "independent" (sic) publicly owned company seems very appealing, in large part because of removing the necessary profit element that a privately owned company requires.

In theory, you could argue that the money saved results in either reduced costs, or increased profit available for re-investment.

Somehow I think the reality will involve too much interference and the treasury wanting to get their grubby hands on the money that would otherwise have gone to a private operators shareholders.

There is also the very high risk that without the weight of commercial reality hanging over such "state owned" companies, inevitably inefficiency and inertia would soon take a firm grip.

 

It looks appealing, but ultimately I think it's a poor model when looking for better alternatives to the current arrangements.

 

 

 

.

[lmsforever]

I am watching the tv series on the East Coast and the staff as usual are brilliant ,dedicated and doing a good job ,the top management also come over dedicated to giving their best.The way the public go on at them and attack them is disgraceful would you want to be on the receiving end of those Sunderland fans?I travelled to York when National Express were in charge and it was not a good experience the current operators seem to be doing better.I agree with the comments about future franchise owners taking profits and not putting anything back ,the DFT seem to be totally incapable of letting franchises correctly .

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....I agree with the comments about future franchise owners taking profits and not putting anything back.....

But they do put a massive amount back, both through the large premiums they have to pay to the government for the privilege of running the franchise and through the capital investment requirements usually placed on the franchisees (e.g. station improvements, provision of new car parks, refurbishment of trains etc, etc.

 

.....the DFT seem to be totally incapable of letting franchises correctly .

You're a 100% correct there.

 

 

 

.

[Mod4]

I realise it is somewhat tricky in a thread of this nature but discussions on Politics are not allowed on this forum, please respect this rule. 

 

Many thanks

[Nimbus]

The One Show has weighed into the the franchise arguments about East Coast Trains even Wolmar was interviewed seem to be in favour of keeping it in public hands ,very inconclusive segment as usual by the BBC .What are your thoughts about this subject.

 

I was pleased that at least they'd noticed. But they did miss the opportunity to point out that among the bidders were likely to be government-owned companies - foreign governments, that is! Pity they didn't bump into Rapido's Jason at KX - being an irregular EC traveller, his views incorporate comparative experience of several franchises. 

 

The point about lack of capital investment biasing returns in favour of the current arrangements was a red herring, as the previous failures didn't need to invest either.

 

The Nim.

[CullingworthGNR]

I am intrigued by the idea that the East Coast Main Line performs well given the reliability statistics.  

[CullingworthGNR]

On 20/12/2013 at 12:25, Mod4 said:

I realise it is somewhat tricky in a thread of this nature but discussions on Politics are now allowed on this forum, please respect this rule. 

 

Many thanks

 

Now allowed, or not allowed? 

 

[Mod4]

Now allowed, or not allowed?

 

 

Doh! duly corrected, I blame my diodes...

[Ron Ron Ron]

....But they did miss the opportunity to point out that among the bidders were likely to be government-owned companies - foreign governments....

 

 

I think you may be wrong. I'm sure that was mentioned?

 

The point about lack of capital investment biasing returns in favour of the current arrangements was a red herring, as the previous failures didn't need to invest either.

Yes they did.

The reasons for failure included most prominently the realisation that the franchisees would not be able to make the massive premium payments due to the government.

The franchises are not a freebee. They include having to pay hundreds of millions, if not over a billion, of £££'s back to the state.

 

 

 

.

[Richard E]

As an ECML user for nearly 8 years I have seen GNER, NXEC and EC.

 

All three companies have shared pretty much the same senior management (except at board level) and staff with TUPE transfers each time there has been a change. Admittedly there have been redundancies as well though.

 

From a regular user point of view each has their points that stick in the mind:

 

GNER - very smartly turned out, punctual and stock rarely, to the traveller, exhibiting faults. Lacked free Wifi, even for a limited time which was frustrating for business users.

 

NXEC - took over from GNER, made small changes including free WiFi for all travellers. When they started hitting financial issues they re-introduced charges for WiFi in standard class. Apparent just after they took over that stock maintenance had been cut back drastically with a spate of OHLE failures where the pan severed the wire due to the pickup blocks being completely wasted. They learned from that. WiFi kit unchanged from GNER days despite trumpeting that it had been upgraded. Timing reliability poorer than GNER.

 

EC - on taking over from NXEC there was a small pick up in reliability initially but it is now very apparent that they have cut back on maintenance even more. Only safety critical work seems to be done with trains coming out of the depot with sanitation tanks apparently still full as the first or second train north each day often stinks of raw sewage. Internal doors frequently do not work being either stuck open or, sometimes, shut. Toilets are regularly incapable of being flushed as the water tanks are empty although I will grant this is usually on southbound services later in the day. Externally the stock is filthy, encrusted with an overall brown patina that is up to 1/4" thick on the coach ends and in some cases thick enough on the sides that it is almost impossible to see out of the windows. There are occurences of pans severing OHLE apparently occurring again more frequently. Electrical faults are more common (have you experienced the automated PA on a 225 pretending to be Marvin from the Hitchikers Guide and acting autonomously throughout an hour and a half on the train without stopping - I have) with the aircon regularly not working in summer and the heating failed in winter. Traction faults seem to be on the increase as well. My service even left Doncaster earlier this week with a carriage door improperly shut due to a fault with the door closing/locking mechanism - the emergency brake application as a result was interesting. Still using the GNER Wifi kit (a GNER ID will crop up now and again even now) with regular faults cropping up. On train communication is poor (one 'excuse' given on the train PA for late running, a second on the Network Rail website and a third on the stations en route ...) although efforts are now being made to improve this. Timing reliability is appalling - I have to work on the premise that my train WILL be late southbound by at least 10 minutes on every journey. Reasons are many and various. When complaining about the guaranteed lateness I was told by EC that the problem was too many passengers wanting to get on and off their trains as they hadn't allowed enough time for the station stops to cover this - unbelievable!

 

I recognise that these points may well not be experienced or suffered by the casual traveller but please bear in mind that I cover over 1100 miles a week on these services at a variety of times of day.

 

Personally, as long as the new franchisee does put more back into maintenance and improvement of the stock then I will look forward to it being run by someone else. I am mindful of the possible impact on fares but mine is protected from silly increases as it is a peak period fare. And, in any case, I pay sufficient money to them already. I haven't worked it out exactly but I think they have had about £40k out of me since I started commuting and are inline for almost the same again before I retire.

[phil-b259]

Good to see that there is absolutely nothing political in this post.

 

What you term "Tory lies" is a belief that the state run organisations tend to be bloated and inefficient.

 

East Coast has been run as if it were a private enterprise along the lines of other franchises so that it could be re-privatised. This was the intention when it was taken back into nationalised hands. So perhaps it is not a surprise that it has been run competently.

 

Maybe we've stumbled on a model? Run it as if it were private so that it doesn't act as a drain on the public purse?

It is a well established fact that the conservatives regard all public sector operations as inherently 'bad' while conversely Labour doctrine holds that public sector operations are by and large 'good'

 

However this approch is ultimately misleading as when looked at in detail, examples of bad practice in both the public and private sector are easy to find.

 

In reality both public and private sector involvement have advantages and disadvantages, the specifics of which will depend on the industry (for example as has been noted East Coast doesn't pay a premium to the treasury bit does return 100% of its profits). Incidentally with regard to comments regarding dirty trains and full toilets - this is not new, I know for a fact FCC deliberately refused to remove graffiti on brand new Thaneslink trains a couple of years ago on the grounds that the franchise was due to expire and why should FCC shareholders spend money on a franchise they may not be operating in 6 months time.

 

What I object to is the approach of Governments who seek to impose a particular system on an industry for ideological reasons. By all means let is have a debate - with access to solid facts, etc and make a decision accordingly. Ideology has no place in such decisions and the sooner people realise it the better.

[The Lurker]

It is a well established fact that the conservatives regard all public sector operations as inherently 'bad' while conversely Labour doctrine holds that public sector operations are by and large 'good'

 

However this approch is ultimately misleading as when looked at in detail, examples of bad practice in both the public and private sector are easy to find.

 

In reality both public and private sector involvement have advantages and disadvantages, the specifics of which will depend on the industry (for example as has been noted East Coast doesn't pay a premium to the treasury bit does return 100% of its profits). Incidentally with regard to comments regarding dirty trains and full toilets - this is not new, I know for a fact FCC deliberately refused to remove graffiti on brand new Thaneslink trains a couple of years ago on the grounds that the franchise was due to expire and why should DCc shareholders spend money on a franchise they may not be operating in 6 months time).

 

What I object to is the approach of Governments who seek to impose a particular system on an industry for ideological reasons. By all means let is have a debate - with access to solid facts, etc and make a decision accordingly. Ideology has no place in such decisions and the sooner people realise it the better.

I was really making the point that you termed it "Tory lies", when what you are talking about is ideology. And as you now point out, ideology is often misleading - whoever is promoting it - if your post had been a pro- privatisation post asserting "Labour lies" I would have made the same point.

 

In politics, it's all very well having principals, but often pragmatism is the way forward (eg we'd have never achieved peace in Northern Ireland if we'd refused to "negotiate with terrorists") and the economy is no different.

[Richard E]

It is a well established fact that the conservatives regard all public sector operations as inherently 'bad' while conversely Labour doctrine holds that public sector operations are by and large 'good'

 

However this approch is ultimately misleading as when looked at in detail, examples of bad practice in both the public and private sector are easy to find.

 

 By all means let is have a debate - with access to solid facts, etc and make a decision accordingly. Ideology has no place in such decisions and the sooner people realise it the better.

Who has established that it is a known fact that Tories favour private enterprise and Labour favour nationalisation?

 

Overall, I agree, that empirical evidence would support this but it is a rather general statement that is perhaps not correct as I would suggest not all Tories would support privatisation and not all Labour support nationalisation. After all it was Labour that really embraced the PFI culture which has saddled the NHS and London Underground in particular with massive debts that threaten to bankrupt both services. And that very PFI culture was seen as a way of privatising services, or rather the financing of services, by the back door.

 

Anyway, as politics are not really up for debate on the forum perhaps exploration of the merits of Tory vs Labour vs Lib Dem should not be explored too much.

 

Network Rail are a private company after all, and the outsource the vast majority of maintenance work - there was the opportunity for Stephen Byers to bring all of this back in house when Railtrack failed but it wasn't done - perhaps we should be asking ourselves why if the statement quoted above is such a well known fact.

[phil-b259]

 

Network Rail are a private company after all, and the outsource the vast majority of maintenance work - there was the opportunity for Stephen Byers to bring all of this back in house when Railtrack failed but it wasn't done - perhaps we should be asking ourselves why if the statement quoted above is such a well known fact.

 

Not so. Network Rail is actually fairly unique status wise and is better off being thought as a arms length governmental agency than anything else. Why? well a couple of years ago the Treasury finally accepted what many national and international bodies had been say ever since NR was set up - namely any debts the company had were UK government debts and must be included in the total national debt.

 

As for outsourcing work - this is something Government agencies and departments have been doing for ages and means naff all when considering the status of Network Rail. In fact the desire of successive Governments to remove as much 'hands on' work as possible from the Governments books is what has given rise to 'outsourcing specialists' like Capita whose profits come mostly from UK government contracts.

 

Overall though NR in many ways is a model of what BR should of been. It works on 5 yearly control periods the outcomes of which are decided by a decent consultative process involving all thoses involved in the railway industry with the funding. Moreover the funding for each control period is fixed so everybody knows exactly what NR is getting from year to year and best of all the ministers power to intervene is very restricted.

[phil-b259]

Who has established that it is a known fact that Tories favour private enterprise and Labour favour nationalisation?

 

 

I was speaking in a conceptual and I admit a very artificial sense because life is not that simple. However, opinion polls, parliamentary candidates selection meetings, constituency parties meetings and decisions all support the contention that if you asked a conservative how important services should be delivered to the population, they back private sector provision with state regulation where absolutely necessary. Ask the question to the Labour equivalents and you would come back with the answer that state provision is a more efficient and egalitarian solution.

 

Having said this however I am only too well aware that in practice things are not that simple. People may at heart share a certain ideology or a disposition to behave in a certain way / believe in a certain thing - but differ considerably when it comes to how much they a prepared to compromise or adapt their beliefs to make things happen, particularly when there are powerful arguments against them. In Government this is most obvious when to use an example the Labour party refused to renationalise the railways despite may grassroot supporters and the Trades Unions actively pushing for it. Similarly the current Conservative administration is on record saying that their backers and grassroot members what certain polices to be taken forward but the fact the Conservatives are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats prevents them from doing so.

 

As you say though, this forum is not a place to debate politics, so I will draw a line on going further.

 

On the subject of the East Coast franchise though I stand by my assertion that the way it is being re-franchised (rushed through without a proper debate taking place as to the costs, benefits, advantages and disadvantages of the move) is solely down to Conservative party ideology rather than what is best for railways of this country or the good of the franchise system in general. This is a shame because in the right conditions franchising can be a good idea railways or not.

[phil-b259]

I was really making the point that you termed it "Tory lies",

 

What I was meaning by this is there is some evidence there has been a deliberate strategy by the DfT (and the conservative ministers in charge) to keep quiet the fact that (according to the industry press - I am not a user so have no first hand knowledge), the East Coast management have actually been doing pretty well on the whole. There is also the suspicion that standards are slipping now simply to make it easier to re-franchise the operation - something which is imposable to prove without a internal whistleblower so should be treated with caution.

[Richard E]

Ah, now the privatisation of the railways as started by the Tories was indeed, in my opinion, a very flawed concept. It should have been progressed on the basis of going back to a series of vertically integrated companies, not the many layered gorgon that we have today. I think many of us on here will agree with that.