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 toNorthern 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
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.
Mk 5a's aren't Mk 3s.
Is that not something to do with getting to the tram stop thoughEMT were supposed to have gated Sheffield station...
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?
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.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?
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.
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?
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.
Deliberately so; DfT does not want public scrutiny of its decisions.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.
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.
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?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.
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?
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.That the train service specification could be turned into a viable timetable, for one.
The TOC needs to come to an agreement with NR, specify and probably fund it.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?