• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Stagecoach legal action over franchise awards: Judgement now available

Status
Not open for further replies.

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Not sure if this has been noted before, but according to The Times the trial of this case is set for January, and Chris Grayling and Peter Wilkinson (DfT franchising director) are expected to be called as witnesses.
Meanwhile apparently the South Eastern franchise competition has been cancelled with Govia getting an extension.
Not sure if anything has been decided about West Coast.

Surely has to be the same, cancel it.

I would think by cancelling one and not the other they are probably opening a whole new can of worms. Its fairly clear the system is flawed and not fit for purpose. I would think the WCML is also something the government could do without being screwed up at the current time!

The record of new companies coming in and making change for changes sake hasn't exactly been glowing in recent times.

The West Coast is one of the better services out there currently.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
Surely has to be the same, cancel it.

I would think by cancelling one and not the other they are probably opening a whole new can of worms. Its fairly clear the system is flawed and not fit for purpose. I would think the WCML is also something the government could do without being screwed up at the current time!

West Coast should be cancelled (I am expecting it to be) but East Midlands has past the point of no return.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
West Coast should be cancelled (I am expecting it to be) but East Midlands has past the point of no return.

Yes East Midlands sadly has to go into the hands of my favourite operator of trains who I am sure will do an excellent job like they do across the midlands, Anglia and Scotland. :lol:
 

James90012

Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
161
West Coast should be cancelled (I am expecting it to be) but East Midlands has past the point of no return.

I don't agree that cancelling one competition warrants cancelling another. The two are completely independent, SE has been in the news/rumour mill for a long time for issues relating to technical non-compliance and supposed rebids etc, and clearly has been a difficult franchise to let. West Coast on the other hand is 'on time' - save for recent delays in announcement which more than likely is due to the change in Govt and legal proceedings - and is a completely different offer - it's about getting a long term operator for HS2 as well as today's service.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
I don't agree that cancelling one competition warrants cancelling another. The two are completely independent, SE has been in the news/rumour mill for a long time for issues relating to technical non-compliance and supposed rebids etc, and clearly has been a difficult franchise to let. West Coast on the other hand is 'on time' - save for recent delays in announcement which more than likely is due to the change in Govt and legal proceedings - and is a completely different offer - it's about getting a long term operator for HS2 as well as today's service.

I suppose the West Coast is not as bad as the South Eastern franchise, but What if Stagecoach win then what happens? Are the DfT going to delay the announcement until after Williams?
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
I don't agree that cancelling one competition warrants cancelling another. The two are completely independent, SE has been in the news/rumour mill for a long time for issues relating to technical non-compliance and supposed rebids etc, and clearly has been a difficult franchise to let. West Coast on the other hand is 'on time' - save for recent delays in announcement which more than likely is due to the change in Govt and legal proceedings - and is a completely different offer - it's about getting a long term operator for HS2 as well as today's service.

All the more reason to choose a competent operator.

First Group - meh, MTR - a bit of an unknown. Whoever comes in will probably make new changes and promises of shiny things and gimmicks which will probably result in absolute chaos.

I am sure there will be plenty of technical non compliances here too.

Given Firsts recent performance across the network and their boardroom struggles it wouldn't seem to be a very solid choice.
 

James90012

Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
161
I suppose the West Coast is not as bad as the South Eastern franchise, but What if Stagecoach win then what happens? Are the DfT going to delay the announcement until after Williams?

It can't be Stagecoach as they were disqualified. In terms of timing, who knows, but the current contract with Virgin runs until the end of March so there could be time to consider Williams Review in West Coast, but the flip side is if you cancel WCP and relet in say 2-3 years, by that point you're only 4 years away from HS2 at which point the contract would have changed anyway.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
It can't be Stagecoach as they were disqualified. In terms of timing, who knows, but the current contract with Virgin runs until the end of March so there could be time to consider Williams Review in West Coast, but the flip side is if you cancel WCP and relet in say 2-3 years, by that point you're only 4 years away from HS2 at which point the contract would have changed anyway.

They cant really consider the Williams review if they press ahead and award a franchise based on a flawed bidding process.

I would say they are setting quite a dangerous precedent for themselves if they award this now. Obviously there is some weight behind the court action.

If they award this to First or MTR, they screw everything up and end up handing back they keys because they have over committed on Pensions Liabilities. It would be a mess, probably another mess they could do without. If for example a 'fresh management team' who like 'shiny' come in and absolutely bork the timetables or upset the unions with job changes/losses..again its more negative press the government could do without!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,390
All the more reason to choose a competent operator.

First Group - meh, MTR - a bit of an unknown. Whoever comes in will probably make new changes and promises of shiny things and gimmicks which will probably result in absolute chaos.

I am sure there will be plenty of technical non compliances here too.

Given Firsts recent performance across the network and their boardroom struggles it wouldn't seem to be a very solid choice.
MTR were the original London Overground operator and are Crossrail operators.
 

James90012

Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
161
They cant really consider the Williams review if they press ahead and award a franchise based on a flawed bidding process.

I would say they are setting quite a dangerous precedent for themselves if they award this now. Obviously there is some weight behind the court action.

If they award this to First or MTR, they screw everything up and end up handing back they keys because they have over committed on Pensions Liabilities. It would be a mess, probably another mess they could do without. If for example a 'fresh management team' who like 'shiny' come in and absolutely bork the timetables or upset the unions with job changes/losses..again its more negative press the government could do without!

Following that logic, nothing should ever change.

In respect to the legal challenge leading to Stagecoach winning the bid, I don't think this is a likely scenario. If Stagecoach are successful in their legal action, I would expect the franchise competition to be terminated rather than reopened but that's just my view of the situation.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Following that logic, nothing should ever change.

In respect to the legal challenge leading to Stagecoach winning the bid, I don't think this is a likely scenario. If Stagecoach are successful in their legal action, I would expect the franchise competition to be terminated rather than reopened but that's just my view of the situation.

Change is absolutely fine if it is positive change. We have to be careful of change for changes sake.

In recent times I can not think of any franchises that have been awarded where any of the changes have had a beneficial impact on the customers, in fact often quite the opposite.

The bidders involved here aren't exactly setting the world alight elsewhere, GWR is reasonable from First but has had its problems, I have little experience with MTR but am informed above they operate down south on commuter routes. What if anything is going to improve for customers and staff? The trains need a refurb but I expect most of them will be around for a while yet.

I would prefer to have a new model, which may include longer franchises, more investment from TOCs, possibly multiple competing operators with similar service levels on each route. The other alternative is to look at Japans system.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,641
Location
Redcar
This thread relates to the ongoing legal action pending against the DfT. It is not for wider issues relating to the West Coast Partnership award (i.e. what it should or shouldn't include, what structure should or shouldn't be used, whether it should or shouldn't be awarded at all, etc). Please can we focus on the topic at hand. Further off-topic posts are liable for deletion.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
We could go back to the 'good ol days' of letting the unions run the show under a Labour government, strikes and strikes and if your lucky more strikes.:lol:

More strikes under privatisation, and higher wage inflation, because staff can play TOCs off against each other.

Still, privatisation is great innit.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,641
Not sure if this has been noted before, but according to The Times the trial of this case is set for January, and Chris Grayling and Peter Wilkinson (DfT franchising director) are expected to be called as witnesses.
Meanwhile apparently the South Eastern franchise competition has been cancelled with Govia getting an extension.
Not sure if anything has been decided about West Coast.

I suspect the currently government would be less concerned about Grayling speaking in court, as he's no longer a minister
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Privatisation has given us more stations, more lines, more up to date stock

Has it? Name a line that has re-opened with purely private investment. I'm all ears.

As for the legal claim, "we don't like the result, we'll sue until it's cheaper to pay us off than fight us" is the modus operandi of a company described by the MMC as "predatory, deplorable, and against the public interest."

I don't see why getting a company to underwrite the pensions liabilities of its staff is controversial. Anything else is privatising profit and nationalising loss.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
More strikes under privatisation, and higher wage inflation, because staff can play TOCs off against each other.

Still, privatisation is great innit.

Really I would like to know about the figures of 'more strikes' for sure, some TOCs have never had a strike in many years. Certainly they have less national impact. When British Rail had a strike you were taking a different form of transport anywhere in the country. At least now if EMT decide to strike, it only affects those using EMT and there are often other trains going the same route.

Nationalisation ay, the good ol days. Steam, Diesel fumes and the good ol unions running the show.

Has it? Name a line that has re-opened with purely private investment. I'm all ears.

As for the legal claim, "we don't like the result, we'll sue until it's cheaper to pay us off than fight us" is the modus operandi of a company described by the MMC as "predatory, deplorable, and against the public interest."

I don't see why getting a company to underwrite the pensions liabilities of its staff is controversial. Anything else is privatising profit and nationalising loss.

The legal claim is valid and actually in the best interests of the pension holders.

Its controversial on the basis they are underwriting pensions going back to the days of British Rail, they are underwriting pensions of an unknown future where they maybe turfed out the bring in a new company who will also have to sign up to the liabilities. Its liability shifting from the government, they know they have an unsustainable storm of deficit to deal with confirmed by the pensions watchdog.

They are now fobbing it off on companies to underwrite pensions liabilities that are in some cases bigger than their entire turnover, its crazy, a fast route to bankruptcy for someone. Off course for the government its good, once these pensions are sold off and a certain operator who cant afford it goes bump, the pensions disappear.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
they are underwriting pensions of an unknown future where they maybe turfed out the bring in a new company who will also have to sign up to the liabilities.

The liabilities will end when the franchise ends, no.

"Stagecoach don't want to pay the pensions of Stagecoach staff" is more accurate. Ann would rather spend it on Neil Sedaka.

If a franchisee goes bump, the PPF would kick in.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
The liabilities will end when the franchise ends, no.

"Stagecoach don't want to pay the pensions of Stagecoach staff" is more accurate. Ann would rather spend it on Neil Sedaka.

If a franchisee goes bump, the PPF would kick in.

No in my understanding they have to underwrite it for an undefined period and undefined amount, which is part of the issue. I am sure if someone could set some actual expectations the whole thing maybe clearer. Of course its just the government kicking the can down the road.

I am sure Stagecoach would be happy to pay the pensions of their staff if the government had a better franchising model where the companies who operate semi competent services are rewarded with more franchises over a longer period. To give them 8 years and then say you been good but we want something different now because we can as we are the DfT is ridiculous.

A franchisee will almost certainly go bump at some point soon I predict under the current random awarding to below mediocre operators who promise the earth but deliver nothing, so we will see how good the PPF is, I wouldn't want to be in that position as a staff member. I would rather have a profitable, well run company paying my wages and pension that some faceless risk taking loss making band of brothers. I am sure there would be a move away from defined benefit pensions at some point like most other sectors.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,631
Location
Gateway to the South West
I'm sure it's not as simple as this but it looks like it should be a neutral issue for all bidders. "OK government, you want us to spend £big on pensions because you don't want to. We'll add £big plus 10% to our bid. You'll end up paying anyway".
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
I'm sure it's not as simple as this but it looks like it should be a neutral issue for all bidders. "OK government, you want us to spend £big on pensions because you don't want to. We'll add £big plus 10% to our bid. You'll end up paying anyway".
The trouble is that nobody knows how big "big" is. Stagecoach don't like uncontrollable risk any more than DfT does.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
I'm sure it's not as simple as this but it looks like it should be a neutral issue for all bidders. "OK government, you want us to spend £big on pensions because you don't want to. We'll add £big plus 10% to our bid. You'll end up paying anyway".

Its nowhere near as simple sadly. No one really knows a what a pensions liability will be, you don't know how long people will live, you don't know what contributions are needed to maintain given inflation, what inflation will do, how the economy will fare, how successful any related funds will be. Staff probably need to contribute more to the pots or the companies do, if staff are asked to increase contributions the unions wont be pleased. There is a deficit as recognised by the pensions watchdog and something needs to be done. The government are kicking the can. This is the kind of approach Abellio have taken to win EMT, its a big risk, it may pay off as long as the pension regulator doesn't demand a large top up payment soon.

This is the reason for the legal action and why it hasn't been kicked out of court, because they are valid concerns that need to be addressed before someone end up in a mess. We already have tonnes of reckless companies going into administration and causing loss of pensions for hard working staff, we don't need more.

There's always going to be risk takers and fag packet accountants out there we don't want them running our railways.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
current random awarding to people other than my beloved Stagecoach

Fixed that for you.

You can't, with any seriousness, look at the likes of Abellio and say they're incompetent. Not if you ever used SWT ("let's sack all the drivers and then cancel everything") or Silverlink (ditto). Or Northern Spirit (went bust). Or North Western Trains (also went bust). Or Connex.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,098
Location
Reading
Has it? Name a line that has re-opened with purely private investment. I'm all ears.

As for the legal claim, "we don't like the result, we'll sue until it's cheaper to pay us off than fight us" is the modus operandi of a company described by the MMC as "predatory, deplorable, and against the public interest."

I don't see why getting a company to underwrite the pensions liabilities of its staff is controversial. Anything else is privatising profit and nationalising loss.
I'm disappointed. I expected higher quality and more up-to-date polemic from you than a reference to a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that is now nearly a quarter of a century old.

Tut, tut! Must do better...
 

DavidGrain

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2017
Messages
1,236
Its nowhere near as simple sadly. No one really knows a what a pensions liability will be, you don't know how long people will live, you don't know what contributions are needed to maintain given inflation, what inflation will do, how the economy will fare, how successful any related funds will be. Staff probably need to contribute more to the pots or the companies do, if staff are asked to increase contributions the unions wont be pleased. There is a deficit as recognised by the pensions watchdog and something needs to be done. The government are kicking the can. This is the kind of approach Abellio have taken to win EMT, its a big risk, it may pay off as long as the pension regulator doesn't demand a large top up payment soon.

This is the reason for the legal action and why it hasn't been kicked out of court, because they are valid concerns that need to be addressed before someone end up in a mess. We already have tonnes of reckless companies going into administration and causing loss of pensions for hard working staff, we don't need more.

There's always going to be risk takers and fag packet accountants out there we don't want them running our railways.

I just want to say that I agree with the analysis from StaffsWCML above. The franchisees should be responsible only for the pension liabilities relating to the staff working for them during the time that they do work for them. That means that the pension fund should be valued at the beginning and end of any franchise and the outgoing franchisee should pay for any deficit that has arisen during the term of the franchise. A franchisee should not have any liability for previous service or any liability that might accrue in the future.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Fixed that for you.

You can't, with any seriousness, look at the likes of Abellio and say they're incompetent. Not if you ever used SWT ("let's sack all the drivers and then cancel everything") or Silverlink (ditto). Or Northern Spirit (went bust). Or North Western Trains (also went bust). Or Connex.

Its not really relevant to the legal case at all, but I urge you to try Scotrail, or WMT, Greater Anglia, London North Western with their fabulously well planned timetabling and disappearing trains. Abellio are the definition of incompetence.

This isn't in the past, this is now - today. Its happening probably right this moment and they keep getting more awards because they take unquantified risks. Soon to cock up EMT too.

I suppose they are ok in you books, they must be fabulous as they are Dutch Government owned, government run things are obviously fantastic everywhere.

Getting a case thrown out before trial is a very high barrier, for obvious reasoms of justice, so I wouldn't take it as any sign of merit.

Well its a better indication that the DfT aren't as watertight as they think they are.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Well its a better indication that the DfT aren't as watertight as they think they are.

It isn't. Only completely looney-tunes cases get thrown out without a trial.

That said, I've just seen the Court of Appeal decide- with a straight face- that a bedroom is a hypothetical construct and it's still a bedroom (and you should lose your benefits) even if you can't actually fit a bed into it. So God only knows what the Courts will decide on this.

This isn't in the past, this is now - today.

Having used Silverlink, London Midland and LNR/WMT in my time, I'd not be arguing that the current tendering process is resulting in a worsening operation.

WMT are a breath of fresh air compared to the execrable London Midland! (No, that's not intended as an endorsement of WMT)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top