• 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 Franchises to be Replaced with Fixed Fee Contracts

Status
Not open for further replies.

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
So, will this result in a second BR? Or will it end in a big four situation?

neither as it’s not being nationalised. It’s just being run as concessions (like GTR is) not franchises.

Whilst there may be some remapping I wouldn’t expect huge amounts of change
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,390
Wouldn't it be funny if they did decided to go for government mandated liveries for each operator/contract but as to do it on the cheap looked at what branding they already owned, and as such decided that given they acquired the SWT brand that would be one of the pilot areas. Imagine SWR having to rebrand as their predecessor, well at least there would still be a few trains that wouldn't need painting!

Naturally the one thing I hope doesn't happen is that if/when fares are "simplified" that doesn't mean big price rises for leisure travellers, we want people to use trains and getting people to use the quieter trains is important to getting rail back on track and as such there will need to be tickets with restrictions that are significantly cheaper.

Lastly I hope the Government don't enforce some sort of "Buy British" nonsense, I fully support rail equipment (track, trains, signalling Etc.) made in Britain so long as the quality is there, it would be monumentally stupid to buy rail equipment that is absolutely crap just because it's British (of course other countries (I'm looking at you Italy (AnsaldoBreda) can produce equipment of amazing crapness).
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Wouldn't it be funny if they did decided to go for government mandated liveries for each operator/contract but as to do it on the cheap looked at what branding they already owned, and as such decided that given they acquired the SWT brand that would be one of the pilot areas. Imagine SWR having to rebrand as their predecessor, well at least there would still be a few trains that wouldn't need painting!

SWT (and EMT) had the standard Stagecoach branding, which the government certainly doesn't own.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
Wouldn't it be funny if they did decided to go for government mandated liveries for each operator/contract but as to do it on the cheap looked at what branding they already owned, and as such decided that given they acquired the SWT brand that would be one of the pilot areas. Imagine SWR having to rebrand as their predecessor, well at least there would still be a few trains that wouldn't need painting!

Naturally the one thing I hope doesn't happen is that if/when fares are "simplified" that doesn't mean big price rises for leisure travellers, we want people to use trains and getting people to use the quieter trains is important to getting rail back on track and as such there will need to be tickets with restrictions that are significantly cheaper.

Lastly I hope the Government don't enforce some sort of "Buy British" nonsense, I fully support rail equipment (track, trains, signalling Etc.) made in Britain so long as the quality is there, it would be monumentally stupid to buy rail equipment that is absolutely crap just because it's British (of course other countries (I'm looking at you Italy (AnsaldoBreda) can produce equipment of amazing crapness).
Don't the DfT like that grey livery (think Thameslink)? Kind of what cynics say about civil servants - very unfairly of course
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Don't the DfT like that grey livery (think Thameslink)? Kind of what cynics say about civil servants - very unfairly of course

They certainly used to like grey - of which the East Coast variant was the most dull and bland of all. Not sure whether it's still in favour these days.
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,352
it would be monumentally stupid to buy rail equipment that is absolutely crap just because it's British

As someone who drives Bombardier products, sees all the problems with them, and watches more getting ordered, I feel this problem already exists (and also I believe Bombardier is normally cheaper)
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
The message of "do not use trains unless you are a key worker" (resulting in totally empty trains for a good number of weeks) , has probably made some serious damage.

The PM said that the government never intended for those who can't work from home to not go to work, with the exception of businesses forced to close and those shielding or self-isolating. The instruction for lockdown was you are only to go out for work if you cannot work from home and only to use public transport if you have no other alternative. Although, Northern under government control, didn't get that message and cancelled many commuter services, claiming there was no significant flow of key workers on them and kept referring to 'key worker timetables.'
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
The PM said that the government never intended for those who can't work from home to not go to work, with the exception of businesses forced to close and those shielding or self-isolating. The instruction for lockdown was you are only to go out for work if you cannot work from home and only to use public transport if you have no other alternative. Although, Northern under government control, didn't get that message and cancelled many commuter services, claiming there was no significant flow of key workers on them and kept referring to 'key worker timetables.'
There were many businesses where work couldn't be done from home. And not essential work. Who furloughed their staff not because of government/train advice. But because it was either impossible for the job to be done safely or because business dried up as a result of lockdown. I know people who work in TV and film production who were furloughed because the TV and film production industries often depend on international travel to function which was and still is highly restricted
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
There were many businesses where work couldn't be done from home. And not essential work. Who furloughed their staff not because of government/train advice. But because it was either impossible for the job to be done safely or because business dried up as a result of lockdown. I know people who work in TV and film production who were furloughed because the TV and film production industries often depend on international travel to function which was and still is highly restricted

Yes there were. However, those aren't people who avoided going in to work because they misinterpreted the government advice or because the public transport operators spread misleading information about their services being for key workers only.

The people you know were actually lucky as a lot of people who work in TV production are freelance and consequently didn't qualify for any government help.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,446
Location
London
neither as it’s not being nationalised. It’s just being run as concessions (like GTR is) not franchises.

Whilst there may be some remapping I wouldn’t expect huge amounts of change

In name only. The major privatisation of the railway of course came from competition "for the market" in the former of franchises (yes Open Access Operators in very specific parts of the network). Has much information been given on how these concessions will be competed for? In any case there isn't likely to be one for 12-18 months making it quasi-nationalised.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Yes there were. However, those aren't people who avoided going in to work because they misinterpreted the government advice
This apportionment of blame is deeply unhelpful. The government are responsible for the effects of their advice - not the people the advice is for. People did what they believed to be the right thing. If that was "misinterpreted" the responsibility for that lies with the Prime Minister.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
This apportionment of blame is deeply unhelpful. The government are responsible for the effects of their advice - not the people the advice is for. People did what they believed to be the right thing. If that was "misinterpreted" the responsibility for that lies with the Prime Minister.

I was actually primarily blaming the train operators and/or the (lack of) communication between the government and the train operators (including government controlled Northern), which you'll see if you read both my earlier posts properly. A sentence always ends with a full stop not the word or. The government should have provided clarification (before they eased restrictions) and shouldn't have allowed an operator under their control to contradict the PM but it is possible people thought the PM had advised us to avoid doing something which he hadn't because of what they'd read elsewhere.

Honestly, I tried to provide some clarification to what I said earlier and then get an apparent forum associate staff member complaining because he didn't bother to read everything I said!
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I was actually primarily blaming the train operators and/or the (lack of) communication between the government and the train operators (including government controlled Northern), which you'll see if you read both my earlier posts properly. A sentence always ends with a full stop not the word or. The government should have provided clarification (before they eased restrictions) and shouldn't have allowed an operator under their control to contradict the PM but it is possible people thought the PM had advised us to avoid doing something which he hadn't because of what they'd read elsewhere.

Honestly, I tried to provide some clarification to what I said earlier and then get an apparent forum associate staff member complaining because he didn't bother to read everything I said!
I did read the parts of your post that I didn't quote, but as you know it includes a version of events presented as factual which is in fact a matter of dispute. Quoting this would have increased conflict even more because it would have needed to be made plain that I did not accept your account of that as fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top