Franchise obligations not delivered

[BeHereNow]

A few threads have mentioned that specific franchises haven't delivered franchise obligations as planned, or on time.

Is anyone aware of any specific 'major' obligations that haven't or won't be delivered, and what DfT did about it?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Northern seem to have not delivered most of their obligations

 

[cjmillsnun]

SWRs introduction of their new timetable. Their refurbishment of all stock and introduction of class 442s. All late. Timetable change delay was at request of DfT and DfT don’t seem bothered by the rest.

 

[darloscott]

Northern seem to have not delivered most of their obligations

However they've also been held back by a number of infrastructure projects not being delivered on time, and therefore these will more than likely have been re-negotiated with DfT - discussions which of course we'll never be privy to

 

[gordonthemoron]

However they've also been held back by a number of infrastructure projects not being delivered on time, and therefore these will more than likely have been re-negotiated with DfT - discussions which of course we'll never be privy to

bout time they sorted out the Chester-Altrincham line, the service is worse than it was before they took over

 

[Dr Hoo]

I suspect that at least some of the 'obligations' to deliver certain outputs are more specifically obligations to use 'reasonable endeavours' to deliver them.
So if a franchise orders rolling stock (via a ROSCO) but it isn't delivered, isn't refurbished in time, won't be accepted by Network Rail due to electrical interference or won't immediately be signed off by the ORR, the franchisee may still be meeting their obligations.
Similarly if a franchise bids for timetable slots but Network Rail is unable to satisfy them (because of infrastructure upgrades not completed or DfT directions to de-prioritise certain changes) or ORR doesn't approve the access rights, then again the TOC has still complied.
No doubt some of the Forum's franchising experts can express this more precisely or elegantly.

 

[Bertie the bus]

A number of months ago I had a quick read through the public version of TPE’s franchise agreement to establish exactly when the Mk 5a’s were supposed to enter service. The dates were redacted but there was something about the sets should enter service on the date specified or within 1 year of that date. From that my understanding is all the promises made at the time of franchise awards aren’t technically franchise commitments or obligations but just PR guff and wishful thinking.

 

[Iskra]

A number of months ago I had a quick read through the public version of TPE’s franchise agreement to establish exactly when the Mk 5a’s were supposed to enter service. The dates were redacted but there was something about the sets should enter service on the date specified or within 1 year of that date. From that my understanding is all the promises made at the time of franchise awards aren’t technically franchise commitments or obligations but just PR guff and wishful thinking.

TP got around that one by running one pointless service using those MK3's at a silly time, thus fulfilling their obligations.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Mk 5a's aren't Mk 3s.

 

[Iskra]

Mk 5a's aren't Mk 3s.

That's a very good point

 

[BeHereNow]

OK, given that some timetable changes may have been delayed by Network Rail causes, it would be interesting to see how many are the train operators' risk. Station upgrades as a good example.

So far we've got:

South Western Railway
Delayed refurbishment of rolling stock

Northern
Unspecified!

Transpennine Express
Mk3 carriages in passenger service?
Late delivery of CAF coaching stock?

 

[47421]

re-posting from other thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...dler-flirt-trains.148431/page-69#post-3922359

No real updates on these other than final bullet point re TSR3, that is happening Dec 2020 earliest now. Still no info on whether new timetable will include anything like the promised extra 1144 services.

On STAR, Meridian Water station is due to open (and Angel Road close) on Monday 20 May, seems to be no recent publicity about this, so who knows what will happen.

And seems no prospect of getting any of the new trains in service, clearly the 4 new Norwich in 90 services starting next week are not going to be operated by the bimodes for a while yet.


"See below. Not rumours but statements based on a reading of the publicly available Franchise Agreement (google will take you to it, and can word search to find the full legal language if you want to confirm for yourself). BTW gives me no satisfaction to record these failings of GA/rest of rail industry.

A selection of GA Franchise Commitments:

• By 31 Oct 18 - 27 x 317 to be fitted with ASDO and 96 platforms to have ASDO beacons. Seems to have been abandoned
• No date specified, but must mean by 31 Dec 19 latest - 27 x 317 to have PRM mods. Only one sent away so far so no prospect of 27 being done by deadline
• "The Franchisee shall implement the Approved Detailed Design for each of the Redevelopment Stations in order that the redevelopment work is completed in accordance with the Approved Detailed Design by no later than: (a) 31 December 2019 in the case of Broxbourne Station, Cheshunt Station, Harlow Town Station and Southend Victoria Station; (b) 31 December 2020 in the case of Cambridge Station". Is this happening? Dont see any evidence of it on the ground
• "By no later than the next Fares Setting Round occurring after 1 May 2018, the Franchisee shall make available to passengers for the remainder of the Franchise Period Anytime Flex Carnet and the -Off Peak Flex Carnet". Never happened
  
• "By no later than 30 April 2019, the Franchisee shall launch a six (6) month pilot utilising near field communication". What are the chances??
• "By no later than 30 January 2019, the Franchisee shall use its best endeavours to implement cloud based post-pay ticketing on Passenger Services between London Stations and Southend, Norwich or Cambridge ". Nope
• TSR2 May 19 - extra TPH off peak to Hert East and Southend Vic, extra TPH Liv St to Norwich (extension of Ipswich semi fast), Norwich Camb extended to Stansted Airport all day. Nope, Nope, Nope and Nope
• "infrastructure works at each of Hertford East, Wickford, Manningtree, Kings Lynn, Elsenham, Ware, St Margarets and Enfield Lock Stations as are necessary to enable any Passenger Services comprised of 10 rolling stock vehicles to call at such Stations by no later than 1 September 2018". Nope - NR have this down as a 2021 event. No info on what stock is expected to run to Hert East until then
  
• STAR, originally due Dec 18, deferred by NR to May 19, now extra services not expected until Sept 19 earliest
• By 31 Dec 2018 ontrain wifi on entire existing fleet. Nope
• TSR3 May 20 - extra 1144 services a week. No chance. I would be surprised if it was half that number.

And then there is the 720 mess, which gets worse by the day.
And the finance mess, with £80m of the £280m buffer spent by March 2018, and lots more expected to be spent by March 19.

 

[BeHereNow]

Very interesting. A lot of blame seems to be going on DfT at the moment, and yet look at that list. If it's only half correct that's still a massive failure by a supplier.

 

[talltim]

EMT were supposed to have gated Sheffield station...

 

[43055]

EMT were supposed to have gated Sheffield station...

Is that not something to do with getting to the tram stop though

 

[3141]

What we won't know much about are possible trade-offs between a TOC and DfT. As an example, it's been stated that the approaches to Waterloo take longer because some points are now located further out, and because some longer trains take longer to clear signal sections. Also, the responses to SWR's consultations on the proposed new timetable showed opposition to the proposed reductions in service at some stations to provide the faster journeys that had been promised. So the TOC would be in a strong position when negotiating with the DfT about not making some of the proposed timetable changes. In the course of the discussions, might they not also seek agreement that they should take longer to refurbish all the Desiros? What appears to us as a breach of the franchise agreement might actually be part of a revised agreement between the two parties, arising from a clearer appreciation of the realities.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Also, the responses to SWR's consultations on the proposed new timetable showed opposition to the proposed reductions in service at some stations to provide the faster journeys that had been promised. So the TOC would be in a strong position when negotiating with the DfT about not making some of the proposed timetable changes. In the course of the discussions, might they not also seek agreement that they should take longer to refurbish all the Desiros?

I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that a TOC can, and should be able to, propose timetable changes, abandon them because the changes they proposed don’t meet the needs of its users and then get something in return? Doesn’t that mean the TOC simply can’t lose no matter what garbage it puts in its bid for the franchise and passengers don’t get the enhancements promised?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

All commitments in terms of compliance are subject to using best endeavours to achieve them. Not delivering them if you have used best endeavours will not put you in breach but generally put the TOC on risk for that revenue/cost that is now missing.

In timetable change terms if you use best endeavours to gain access rights but fail from a compliance point you will br covered. Likewise all major timetable changes require consultation, if you consult and find everyone wants something else that’s another discussion with the DfT which can then kick start a number of options for change.

 

[swt_passenger]

I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that a TOC can, and should be able to, propose timetable changes, abandon them because the changes they proposed don’t meet the needs of its users and then get something in return? Doesn’t that mean the TOC simply can’t lose no matter what garbage it puts in its bid for the franchise and passengers don’t get the enhancements promised?

The main timetable changes that people complained about, which were basically on the Weymouth end of the line, were not made “on spec” by the new TOC. DfT put them into the franchise specification in order to meet an apparent call for speeding up the services to Waterloo. This was supposed to be a good thing, but people didn’t know about the resulting removal of intermediate calls, and removal of through services to Waterloo for some stations. Weymouth was planned by DfT to reduce to one train per hour, with the other being a Portsmouth service. Similar with the Exeter line, where significant time savings were to be achieved by removing all calls east of Basingstoke.

Another main area of the route which saw many complaints, (that was clearly a DfT proposal), was reintroducing a Weybridge - Virginia Water shuttle, in order to make space through Staines to have 4 tph all day to both Windsor and Reading. The Reading line skip stop calling patterns that were complained about were also in the franchise spec. The problem seems to have been that although the SLC in the ITT was consulted on it wasn’t that well known to the public.

It seems to me that any incoming franchisee would have ended up with the same problems, IF they had proposed a timetable in accordance with the ITT.

 

[47421]

All commitments in terms of compliance are subject to using best endeavours to achieve them. Not delivering them if you have used best endeavours will not put you in breach but generally put the TOC on risk for that revenue/cost that is now missing.

In timetable change terms if you use best endeavours to gain access rights but fail from a compliance point you will br covered. Likewise all major timetable changes require consultation, if you consult and find everyone wants something else that’s another discussion with the DfT which can then kick start a number of options for change.

This is far too general a statement. It may be the case in relation to SouthWestern and timetable changes, I have not checked. But under the GA Franchise Agreement the vast majority of Franchisee Commitments are hard obligations, not qualified best or reasonable endeavours obligations. It is true that many are difficult to satisfy without assistance / engagement etc by others, but that is what the contract says. For example below is the text on Infrastructure upgrades, hard obligation on franchisee.

105. Infrastructure upgrades

105.1 By no later than 1 May 2019, the Franchisee shall make all necessary changes to the infrastructure of the Stations (including relevant associated infrastructure surrounding such Stations) in order to accommodate the Passenger Services as set out in TSR2 and the Franchisee shall incur a minimum expenditure of [REDACTED120] in doing so.

105.2 Pursuant to paragraph 105.1 such changes to the infrastructure shall include such infrastructure works at each of Hertford East, Wickford, Manningtree, Kings Lynn, Elsenham, Ware, St Margarets and Enfield Lock Stations as are necessary to enable any Passenger Services comprised of 10 rolling stock vehicles to call at such Stations by no later than 1 September 2018.​

 

[3141]

I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that a TOC can, and should be able to, propose timetable changes, abandon them because the changes they proposed don’t meet the needs of its users and then get something in return? Doesn’t that mean the TOC simply can’t lose no matter what garbage it puts in its bid for the franchise and passengers don’t get the enhancements promised?

I think swt_passenger in post #19 has answered that. I was using the South Western situation as an example as we know something about some aspects of it. Obviously I wasn't making the generalisations that you've invented and then attributed to me.

 

[HH]

Fact is that currently franchisees are suffering on a number of fronts, and DfT, under the aegis of Pete Wilkinson, is bending over backwards not to punish them.

A few years ago GA would have been getting a severe spanking, but it seems that currently there is a blanket derogation on all failures to meet obligations.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fact is that currently franchisees are suffering on a number of fronts, and DfT, under the aegis of Pete Wilkinson, is bending over backwards not to punish them.

A few years ago GA would have been getting a severe spanking, but it seems that currently there is a blanket derogation on all failures to meet obligations.

It really isn’t that simple.

The franchise bidders bid to a spec, based on certain assumptions provided by the DfT. If those assumptions don’t hold, it is the DfT that carry the risk, not the winning franchisee.

 

[Class 170101]

How do we know as the public whether the franchisee has failed to meet its obligation, cannot meet its obligation despite best efforts, or the DfT has agreed something else with the operator in question? Seems a bit opaque to me.

 

[HH]

How do we know as the public whether the franchisee has failed to meet its obligation, cannot meet its obligation despite best efforts, or the DfT has agreed something else with the operator in question? Seems a bit opaque to me.

Deliberately so; DfT does not want public scrutiny of its decisions.

It really isn’t that simple.

The franchise bidders bid to a spec, based on certain assumptions provided by the DfT. If those assumptions don’t hold, it is the DfT that carry the risk, not the winning franchisee.

Most of the assumptions come from the franchisee. Exactly what assumptions provided by the DfT have prevented GA from carrying out its obligations?

 

[talltim]

This is far too general a statement. It may be the case in relation to SouthWestern and timetable changes, I have not checked. But under the GA Franchise Agreement the vast majority of Franchisee Commitments are hard obligations, not qualified best or reasonable endeavours obligations. It is true that many are difficult to satisfy without assistance / engagement etc by others, but that is what the contract says. For example below is the text on Infrastructure upgrades, hard obligation on franchisee.

105. Infrastructure upgrades

105.1 By no later than 1 May 2019, the Franchisee shall make all necessary changes to the infrastructure of the Stations (including relevant associated infrastructure surrounding such Stations) in order to accommodate the Passenger Services as set out in TSR2 and the Franchisee shall incur a minimum expenditure of [REDACTED120] in doing so.

105.2 Pursuant to paragraph 105.1 such changes to the infrastructure shall include such infrastructure works at each of Hertford East, Wickford, Manningtree, Kings Lynn, Elsenham, Ware, St Margarets and Enfield Lock Stations as are necessary to enable any Passenger Services comprised of 10 rolling stock vehicles to call at such Stations by no later than 1 September 2018.​

I don’t know the stations. Does this mean platform extensions? If so surely that’s not really in GA’s remit but NR’s?

 

[Bald Rick]

Deliberately so; DfT does not want public scrutiny of its decisions.



Most of the assumptions come from the franchisee. Exactly what assumptions provided by the DfT have prevented GA from carrying out its obligations?

That the train service specification could be turned into a viable timetable, for one.

 

[HH]

That the train service specification could be turned into a viable timetable, for one.

The bidder does have the chance to say if it doesn't think it can produce a compliant timetable. Of course, no-one wants to admit that, so they go ahead anyway. I do very much believe that DfT over-specify and should leave much more room for change, but owning groups seem curiously reluctant to challenge them on it.

 

[pdeaves]

I don’t know the stations. Does this mean platform extensions? If so surely that’s not really in GA’s remit but NR’s?

The TOC needs to come to an agreement with NR, specify and probably fund it.

 

[Deepgreen]

Probably thought of as minor, but 3tph (GWR) on the North Downs Line is now significantly overdue. I think it was initially required to be in place by May 2018 (but am happy to be corrected on that), and still has no firm introduction date that I have seen.

I would have hoped that the GTR fiasco over Guards and timetables would be considered as a failure to deliver franchise obligations to run a reasonable proportion of scheduled trains (e.g. not allowing the consequent emergency timetables to slip through as delivering the scheduled service!).