• 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!

Rail franchising to face the axe in 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Or more correctly, that the current franchise system is not working properly - which is hardly going to come as a surprise to anyone. The choice isn't a binary choice between the current model and full nationalisation. There are probably dozens of different ways the railways could in principle be structured. I guess for now we still have to wait to see what the Williams Review comes up with.

With the likes of Stagecoach and Virgin not prepared to tender under the current franchise arrangement, something clearly has to give.

From a London point of view, I don't see mass protests asking for London Overground or DLR services to be nationalised, as these are still operated by a private operator, but under a concession

Slightly puzzled how long Inter City routes would be devolved, as surely several regions would want a say? Maybe it's only for local services.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
25 Jan 2016
Messages
541
Location
Wolverhampton
Background notes to Queens Speech (p89)
https://assets.publishing.service.g...839035/Queen_s_Speech_background_briefing.pdf doesn't say anything specifically on franchising other than a white paper based on the Williams Review will be published in the Autumn.

The full briefing note on rail - from page 89 of the linked document is as follows:

Railway reform

“Proposals on railway reform will be brought forward.”
  • The Government will publish a White Paper on the Williams Review recommendations later this autumn.
  • Following the publication of the White Paper, the Government will start implementing reforms from 2020, prioritising improvements for passengers.
  • In September, the Prime Minister announced plans to give Northern leaders more of a say on how the railway is run across the region. This proposal was based on the initial conclusions of the Williams review set out in July.
  • The Williams Review is the first comprehensive review of the railway in a generation, with a clear commitment from the Government to bring in root and branch change. The Review was tasked with making ambitious proposals to reform the rail industry and franchising model.
  • The Review is focused on reforms that will put passengers at the heart of the railway, provide value for taxpayers and deliver economic, social and environmental benefits across Britain. It will focus on five key areas:
○ Trains running on time. A clear focus on customer service excellence, driven by performance measures to bring about genuine behavioural and cultural change.
○ Simplified fares and ticketing to create a modern railway to promote innovation and customer-focussed improvements across the network, including the further roll out of pay-as-you-go.
○ A new industry structure, reducing fragmentation, better aligning track and train, creating clear accountability and a greater distance between Government and running the day to day railway.
○ A new commercial model that lets train operators get on with running services in the interest of passengers and allows greater flexibility and long-term incentives for creativity and innovation.
○ Proposals on leadership, skills, diversity and increased engagement, to better involve the rail workforce in the development of the sector in the long term, and to ensure the sector reflects modern working practices

 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Shall I translate from Tory to actual English?

Proposals on leadership, skills, diversity and increased engagement, to better involve the rail workforce in the development of the sector in the long term, and to ensure the sector reflects modern working practices

aka sorting out those aged, dinosaur like, truculent, recalcitrant union b'stards once and for all, ensuring we can remove as many legal and contractual protections from workers as possible helping to deliver a diverse and engaged workforce best reflecting modern working practices which basically means terrified, cowed people not able to complain or do anything to stop any exploitation. Such is the Tory way.

Put even more simply: You get screwed over at work. So will they!

( and it will go down well here)


○ A new industry structure, reducing fragmentation, better aligning track and train, creating clear accountability and a greater distance between Government and running the day to day railway.

That means we can blame local government like we do about buses! Obviously we wont give the local councils any actual money to invest in railways! God no.

○ A new commercial model that lets train operators get on with running services in the interest of passengers and allows greater flexibility and long-term incentives for creativity and innovation.

Great, our top Tory chums can pocket more cash while the plebby oiks who pay tax ( not us chin chin) can carry the risk!

trebles all round!

○ Trains running on time. A clear focus on customer service excellence, driven by performance measures to bring about genuine behavioural and cultural change.

Best of the lot: A nice sound bite will placate the plebs and hide the fact we are screwing them. This looks like we are on your side but really we aren't and don't give a stuff about you. Nor, if we are honest, do we have any clue how to do this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,103
I do worry about "greater flexibility" and running services in the public interest isn't so much of a good idea.

Late night, early morning and daytime services that are carting fresh air around are not run because train operators want to more because they have to.
 

mpthomson

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
948
Agreed but need not have been. Should immediately reinstate the cancelled electrification schemes - two bites if the cherry in being seen as environmentally friendly too.

That’s completely pointless unless NR is thoroughly overhauled so it can actually complete infrastructure projects on time or remotely on budget. Its project management is woeful, that’s why electrification was paused and some cancelled, not because of any opposition to the roll out.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I doubt there will be a sudden revolution on franchising, even if no new ones are let on the current model.
Contracts are contracts, and these will likely run their course (unless the incumbent bales out or agrees to renegotiate terms).
First Trenitalia therefore has at least 10 years to run ICWC (assuming it starts in December).
It will probably take 5 years or so to establish enough "concessions" to make a difference.
If the DfT or devolved equivalents set the fares, they will not be able to shrug every year and blame the TOCs for "RPI+x" rises.

I find it very curious that so much is invested in the findings of a report that hasn't been published yet.
Keith Williams is completely boxed in now with no scope to be really radical - he just has to follow the path that it seems the DfT has already decided.

The Speech:
"Proposals on railway reform will be brought forward".
Even vaguer than I was expecting.
 
Last edited:

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
I doubt there will be a sudden revolution on franchising, even if no new ones are let on the current model.
Contracts are contracts, and these will likely run their course (unless the incumbent bales out or agrees to renegotiate terms).
First Trenitalia therefore has at least 10 years to run ICWC (assuming it starts in December).
It will probably take 5 years or so to establish enough "concessions" to make a difference.
If the DfT or devolved equivalents set the fares, they will not be able to shrug every year and blame the TOCs for "RPI+x" rises.

I find it very curious that so much is invested in the findings of a report that hasn't been published yet.
Keith Williams is completely boxed in now with no scope to be really radical - he just has to follow the path that it seems the DfT has already decided.
He always was. He is the independent chairman of a /DfT/ review, not the chairman of an /independent/ review.

(Doesn't anybody read the small print...! :D )
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
I have split the PAYG discussion to the appropriate forum section : https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...uth-east-area-result-in-simpler-fares.193556/

And also a discussion on how could IC services be devolved here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ed-in-any-new-structure-and-if-so-how.193558/

Just a reminder to post any suggestions or ideas for changes to franchises in the following thread please: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...d-replace-the-rail-franchising-system.193532/ thanks :)


There is no need to lump all these topics into this thread; we have plenty of capacity for as many threads as there are topics ;)
 
Last edited:

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,749
It was stated that the government may adopt a concession system similar to London

Problem with the plans is the new system wont affect any of the current franchises plus you cant just say trains will run on time and expect them to be on time

Most trains are late because of damaged and problematic infrastructure. A new rail system wont change that
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
It was stated that the government mat adopt a concession system similar to London

Problem with the plans is the new system wont affect any of the current franchises plus you cant just say trains will run on time and expect them to be on time

Most trains are late because of damaged and problematic infrastructure. A new rail system wont change that

The future is very much like GTR (which is now performing rather well)...
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,352
Shall I translate from Tory to actual English?

Proposals on leadership, skills, diversity and increased engagement, to better involve the rail workforce in the development of the sector in the long term, and to ensure the sector reflects modern working practices

aka sorting out those aged, dinosaur like, truculent, recalcitrant union b'stards once and for all, ensuring we can remove as many legal and contractual protections from workers as possible helping to deliver a diverse and engaged workforce best reflecting modern working practices which basically means terrified, cowed people not able to complain or do anything to stop any exploitation. Such is the Tory way.

Put even more simply: You get screwed over at work. So will they!

( and it will go down well here)


○ A new industry structure, reducing fragmentation, better aligning track and train, creating clear accountability and a greater distance between Government and running the day to day railway.

That means we can blame local government like we do about buses! Obviously we wont give the local councils any actual money to invest in railways! God no.

○ A new commercial model that lets train operators get on with running services in the interest of passengers and allows greater flexibility and long-term incentives for creativity and innovation.

Great, our top Tory chums can pocket more cash while the plebby oiks who pay tax ( not us chin chin) can carry the risk!

trebles all round!

○ Trains running on time. A clear focus on customer service excellence, driven by performance measures to bring about genuine behavioural and cultural change.

Best of the lot: A nice sound bite will placate the plebs and hide the fact we are screwing them. This looks like we are on your side but really we aren't and don't give a stuff about you. Nor, if we are honest, do we have any clue how to do this.
About as right as you can be. Bluster, the way of the modern Conservative.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Most trains are late because of damaged and problematic infrastructure. A new rail system wont change that

Pretty much all the ongoing delays on LNR (that weren't occurring in LM days) are due to incompetent timetabling and diagramming, so that isn't necessarily the case. They have now pretty much admitted this.
 
Joined
10 Jan 2018
Messages
276
I think privatisation was a great time back in the late 1990s, when we had a great variety of train operators like First Great Western, GNER and Virgin, but now this system has been taken too far. Poor passengers are having to pay high fares just to endure overcrowded, delayed and cancelled trains and this can't continue.

That's South Eastern franchise now going to OLR in April 2020 once the franchise ended, and Arriva Northern and Scotrail are now also in trouble.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
With the likes of Stagecoach and Virgin not prepared to tender under the current franchise arrangement, something clearly has to give.

And they probably still won't bid unless it becomes seriously profitable so either its a high fee for operating the concession or reduce costs further and in the case of the above two it will probably include pension contributions reduction.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Please use this thread to discuss what is actually proposed

Nothing has been proposed though. It's all smarm no substance from Johnson and Michael Green Grant Schapps.

Same meat different gravy.

With the likes of Stagecoach and Virgin not prepared to tender under the current franchise arrangement, something clearly has to give.

They'll bid if, and only if, there's an extravagantly enormous profit margin involved.

Beardy and the Bus Bandit leaving the industry ain't a bad thing.

Poor passengers are having to pay high fares just to endure overcrowded, delayed and cancelled trains and this can't continue.

Clearly you don't remember the 90s. What we have now is no different.

Connex were worse than even GTR. Silverlink made WMT/LNR look like a beacon of wonderfulness.

North Western Trains and Northern Spirit (the two halves of what is now Northern) both went bust.

There was no golden age of privatisation. It's been an awful needless mess since day one. And anyone who thinks Privatisation II: Carry on Troughing will be any different...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
What’s the margin on the management contracts? They are happy to take those.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Silverlink made WMT/LNR look like a beacon of wonderfulness.

Silverlink Metro was rubbish compared with London Overground, but Silverlink County, the south WCML commuter services, was (I said at the time) "quietly competent" (other than the garish livery) at operating a reasonably punctual, reliable and capacious service on the south WCML without engaging in conquests for other things besides its core market. It basically just carried on doing what BR/NSE did, with competent local management who understood what and who they were running.

Sure, Class 321s are not as nice as Class 350s, but I'd rather have a slightly old fashioned train on time than a nice new one so unpunctual that you might as well just show up and see what happens.

I'd have it back tomorrow rather than this present shower.
 

class 9

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
948
Northern Spirit didn’t go bust either, the parent company MTL (tin pot bus company from Merseyside) was bought by Arriva, NS was changed to ArrivaTrains Northern (ATN).
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
It was stated that the government may adopt a concession system similar to London

Problem with the plans is the new system wont affect any of the current franchises plus you cant just say trains will run on time and expect them to be on time

Most trains are late because of damaged and problematic infrastructure. A new rail system wont change that

I agree about infrastructure being a huge ignored problem (politicians of both sides want to do the headline-grabbing stuff about the high profile franchises but nobody seems to want to do anything about Network Rail).

NR contributes to a large number of delay minutes and shovels billions of pounds onto its debts but I guess it's easier to get the public whipped up over a TOC taking a million pounds and hard to get them bothered about Network Rail going a billion pounds over budget).

IMHO it's not about the concessionary model or the franchise model - it really boils down to how good the terms are. For example, London Overground has a good reputation but TSGN is seen as having a poor one - both are concessions (where an organisation runs it for an agreed management fee). LNER is effectively a group of well paid management consultants doing something similar (but people like to think of as being "nationalised").

Does long term or short term matter that much? Chiltern is an example of a good long term franchise because they invested, but we've been stuck with unremarkable long term Wales & Borders and Northern franchises that were stuck with the poor terms (and, given the high subsidy per passenger mile, there's little incentive for the TOC to go above and beyond the franchise terms, so you can't blame them for not doing much more).

Personally, I have no great preference to long term or short term franchises, for tightly specified ones or ones with a lot of "freedom" - some work well and some work badly and it generally comes down to how much money there was to invest. So it's less about a pre-conceived idea of whether a five year or a twenty year contract would be better, whether it's a tightly written set of commitments or whether the bidders have flexibility... it's more about £££ - sadly I suspect that any attempt to change things is partly because the Government want an excuse to cut back on subsidies (and it'll be a lot easier to starve little franchises compared to the higher profile regional franchises)

For example, whether the next XC franchise is a step forward or more stagnation will mainly be about whether there's the money for radical improvements or just a "Steady As She Goes" franchise where money is found for new seat covers and better WiFi but no new trains. Give them enough money and it'll be a great TOC but whether it's five/twenty years matters a lot less.

Although I don't think there's any chance of this coming into legislation any time soon - it's a bit of headline grabbing "red meat" from a Government desperate to focus attention on the "sunlight uplands" of a post-Brexit world, because, let's face it, they can promise whatever they want - there'll be an election in the next few months and all of today's Queens Speech a distant memory - but having something that looks pro-passenger is a nice way of making the Government look better in a subject that Labour tend to be more popular on.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
There can't be anything more regurgitated than the union's Pie n' Mash metaphors, and their perpetual disapproval.

I disagree that this is meaningless. Proof is the recently released (and much criticised by me!) GM prospectus for rail.

Like them or "other", whether it's right or wrong, the officials in GM are connected, and totally plugged in to the machinations of Whitehall. Fair or not, they are always ahead of the curve.

I called their prospectus a power grab. And if they are grabbing power, it's because they know it's likely to be on offer.
 

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,641
I would question the merit of investing too much into this argument.

This emanates from BoJo and his circus and therefore it is probably as worthy of debate as a discussion of the favourite football teams of the unicorn.
 

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
587
Location
Bushey
I am sure the franchising model will simply emerge in a different form. Probably going back to a point where the DfT is not so prescriptive, with performance indicators rather than cap and collar being the judgement. No more insistence on this that and the other. More reward if you win a franchise and do well, and more risk to you if you get it wrong. Maybe more Merseyrail type management of urban services.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The Welsh experience is interesting.
James Price the boss of TfW (the WG body) apologised today for the lack of progress since they took control of the franchise a year ago, and asked for patience, particularly over fleet improvements.
The franchisee and operator (Keolis Amey aka TfW Rail) was not in the dock.
It's devolved, with appropriate budget transferred from DfT, so nearer the concession model than DfT franchises.
I have yet to hear anyone from the north of England apologise for their part in the franchises that they are co-managers of - all the odium is heaped on Arriva and First Group.
And Transport Scotland is forever castigating Abellio for their performance, and they are never allowed to get out of their "must improve" box.
It's quite a big contrast in management styles across the country.
The TfW contract has another 14 years to run by the way, so that's another franchise that won't be affected for at least a decade by anything that the DfT proposes.
 

Panupreset

Member
Joined
8 May 2015
Messages
173
Not one mention of safety. It will be thrown up in the air again when the big accident that’s waiting to happen occurs.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
If you look at the amount of rail subsidy that is given to the industry, if you exclude enhancements to the existing network and spending on HS2 the cost to the government is sub £200 million.

Regardless as to how you stack the deckchairs that figure is unlikely to change by a lot.

Regional funding of rail would likely require money being distributed otherwise those regions which will be involved in running the SWR franchise will get a very nice cash bonus, thank you very much DfT. (Which isn't going to happen).

There's certainly a need for more local direction on where funding improvements is spent. For instance a system where a TOC (for want of a better term) can direct funding to fix a problem junction/line/signals/etc. so as to improve the reliability of the system.

For instance, if SWR found that significant delays were attributed to the junction at Woking they could say, if we build that grade separated junction at a cost of £100 million but is saves the equivalent of 1 hour of delay to services a day (either through the removal of delays or by being able to recover from delays more quickly or just by services being able to catch up if they are late more easily) then it's worth doing.

An hour's worth of delays sounds a lot, but split over >20tph that's :wub: minutes per service, however given that rarely are delays retained to just one hour something which can help claw a minute or two on a lot of services would make a big difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top