First will not take over West Coast from December

[EM2]

Merseyrail? (A 25-year franchise.)

Surely that's a concession, rather than a franchise?
http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh4/business/briefs/RHB_franchise.php

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah never thought about it that way. It makes it much more rewarding to hvae local and long distance services connect into each other.

Well before this all kicked off it seemed that the DfT might have been thinking the same thing. There were parts of the East Coast consultation that suggested it would become a multi-role franchise absorbing some elements of FCC, Northern and EMT. However, with this fresh chaos heaven alone knows what they now think (assuming they were every seriously considering it in the first place).

 

[Skimble19]

I personally wouldn't want any of FCC being absorbed into EC.. Can't see any point in doing so at all. The routes all integrate fairly well with the future TL routes, so why split them?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well before this all kicked off it seemed that the DfT might have been thinking the same thing. There were parts of the East Coast consultation that suggested it would become a multi-role franchise absorbing some elements of FCC, Northern and EMT. However, with this fresh chaos heaven alone knows what they now think (assuming they were every seriously considering it in the first place).

I imagine with the local services in the north east it would be particularly good. Would love to see it personally, i think FGW has turned into a success. Take the local commute services out of paddington out of that and they have some of best satisfaction in country.
Could do some with east and west coast. West coast more difficult due to the large commuter networks of liverpool, manchester glasgow and birmingham. Something that isn't as replicated on East Coast and GW.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I personally wouldn't want any of FCC being absorbed into EC.. Can't see any point in doing so at all.

Don't think many here would either. We are suggesting local services in the north east around hull, york, darlington, middlsborough and newcastle.

 

[snail]

I felt it was a bit off too - Virgin bid for and won Cross Country and West Coast in the 90s without any existing presence; and there's a precedent for two groups placing joint bids with no existing co-presence (TransPennine Express) if he's referring to the Virgin Trains partnership.

But what they are saying is that Virgin Rail in its current form would effectively cease to exist during the bid period. That wouldn't stop them from bidding to take over as a new company 18-24 months later but would increase their costs as they would have to establish the new company, not simply use their existing structure. That cost could be the difference between winning and losing.

 

[IanXC]

I personally wouldn't want any of FCC being absorbed into EC.. Can't see any point in doing so at all. The routes all integrate fairly well with the future TL routes, so why split them?

I think the general school of thought is that the Great Northern Thameslink Southern franchise will be huge, and the services north of Kings Cross which do not go through the Thameslink core will be stuck out on a bit of a limb. Cambridge and Kings Lynn are the starting point, but the same argument applies to the other services, having said that I don't think the issue would even be up for discussion if there wasn't the scope for a multipurpose franchise further north.

 

[sprinterguy]

Don't think many here would either. We are suggesting local services in the north east around hull, york, darlington, middlsborough and newcastle.

The DfT though were additionally suggesting the Moorgate services and the fast Great Northern services for possible inclusion in the ECML franchise.

 

[HH]

I'd have thought you'd have a 15 year franchise that is carefully watched throughout - either every year or every 3-4 years.

That doesn't solve the problem of judging the bids, and stepping in is not the solution of choice.

 

[tbtc]

Well before this all kicked off it seemed that the DfT might have been thinking the same thing. There were parts of the East Coast consultation that suggested it would become a multi-role franchise absorbing some elements of FCC, Northern and EMT. However, with this fresh chaos heaven alone knows what they now think (assuming they were every seriously considering it in the first place).

I imagine with the local services in the north east it would be particularly good. Would love to see it personally, i think FGW has turned into a success. Take the local commute services out of paddington out of that and they have some of best satisfaction in country.
Could do some with east and west coast. West coast more difficult due to the large commuter networks of liverpool, manchester glasgow and birmingham. Something that isn't as replicated on East Coast and GW.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't think many here would either. We are suggesting local services in the north east around hull, york, darlington, middlsborough and newcastle.

It would solve the inherent problem of the WCML franchise - it should be very profitable which means large premiums ought to be paid - the pattern of any franchise is for the subsidy to reduce/premium to increase towards the end of the franchise (First weren't the first to "back end load" a franchise bid - Virgin were back end loading too - most franchise bids are like this).

So how do you stop a company walking away before it has to pay the big premiums in the final years? By sharing the franchise with "less profitable/ marginal/ unprofitable routes.

That way there shouldn't be the same huge promises of back ended premium (or "black holes" like ATW), so things should balance out a lot better.

The question is how to balance up the numbers to get this to work. One "obvious" answer on the WCML would be:

• LM lose Snow Hill services to Chiltern
• Give the London - Birmingham - Wolverhampton part of Virgin to LM
• The remaining WCML franchise gains the bulk of the English bits of the old FNW franchise (inc Birmingham/Manchester - Glasgow/Edinburgh)

Just a starting point.

But what they are saying is that Virgin Rail in its current form would effectively cease to exist during the bid period. That wouldn't stop them from bidding to take over as a new company 18-24 months later but would increase their costs as they would have to establish the new company, not simply use their existing structure. That cost could be the difference between winning and losing.

That was always going to be a risk when you only run one TOC (albeit the most profitable in the country) and that franchise is coming up for renewal.

National Express have lost several franchises from the incumbent position and carry on today with only a tiny TOC - others lost everything (Connex) - am not sure why we should all feel so sorry for Virgin.

 

[HH]

The DfT though were additionally suggesting the Moorgate services and the fast Great Northern services for possible inclusion in the ECML franchise.

Yes, but last I heard that had found no takers.

A note on "back end loading"
Any franchise where revenue is greater than costs is going to look back-end loaded. Costs are generally RPI or less (e.g. NR - RPI, Capital Leases - Flat). Fares rise at RPI+1% plus there is growth. Therefore over time the gap between Income & Cost is rising, so the Premiums get bigger. The longer the Franchise the bigger this effect will be. That this was less noticeable on the Virgin bid suggests that they had heavily front-end loaded their bid, and were playing it very safe at the end.

 

[WillPS]

But what they are saying is that Virgin Rail in its current form would effectively cease to exist during the bid period. That wouldn't stop them from bidding to take over as a new company 18-24 months later but would increase their costs as they would have to establish the new company, not simply use their existing structure. That cost could be the difference between winning and losing.

In which case they're on a level playing field with the others who make the ITT. Don't see the problem with that.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Give the London - Birmingham - Wolverhampton part of Virgin to LM

If we did that we wouldn't have the cheap "VT only" and "LM only" fares...with the result of less people travelling. A more cost effective railway but with less passengers fits with your agenda perfectly doesn't it?

 

[Holly]

For me the best answer would be:
5) Franchises include local and longer distance services.

Better than that (but still not optimal) would be:

One franchise for the entire rail network.

 

[HH]

Better than that (but still not optimal) would be:

One franchise for the entire rail network.

I disagree. When organisations get very large they start to get inefficient. Government, Banks, etc. are great examples of this.

 

[WillPS]

Better than that (but still not optimal) would be:

One franchise for the entire rail network.

That's only acceptable if that one franchise is operated by the government.

 

[HH]

That's only acceptable if that one franchise is operated by the government.

Yes, the same people who brought you the West Coast fiasco should be running the whole shebang. Illogical.

 

[tbtc]

If we did that we wouldn't have the cheap "VT only" and "LM only" fares...with the result of less people travelling. A more cost effective railway but with less passengers fits with your agenda perfectly doesn't it?

I'm not sure what my "agenda" is - maybe you could tell me?

But how come some flows between big cities (Manchester/ Bristol/ Leeds/ Cardiff/ Newcastle) to London have plenty of cheap tickets off-peak despite no real competition*?

And surely there'd still be the very real competition between Birmingham and London on the Chiltern route?

(* - bar a couple of peak EMT services from Neville Hill that go the slow way via Leicester and a couple of SWT 159s that go the slow way from Bristol via Basingstoke, to be pedantic)

 

[WillPS]

Yes, the same people who brought you the West Coast fiasco should be running the whole shebang. Illogical.

That's complete rubbish. BRB was not the same as the MoT, just as DOR is not the same as the DfT, and a future national operator needn't be a part of whatever the department choose to call themselves then either.

SRA did a fine job with Southeastern, DOR are doing a fine job with East Coast... I think as far as models for nationalising franchise by franchise go, they're pretty good.

 

[Eagle]

DOR did a fine with Southeastern, they've done a fine job with East Coast... I think as far as models for nationalising franchise by franchise go, they're pretty good.

South Eastern Trains wasn't owned by DOR (which didn't exist until 2009), it was owned by the SRA. But your point still stands.

 

[HH]

South Eastern Trains wasn't owned by DOR (which didn't exist until 2009), it was owned by the SRA. But your point still stands.

Except they were single Franchises run by a Team much like a TOC (and the Directors running them have largely come from or gone to TOCs).

That's not the same as one entity taking over the whole railway. The only entities to do that currently are DfT and NR.

 

[WillPS]

Except they were single Franchises run by a Team much like a TOC (and the Directors running them have largely come from or gone to TOCs).

That's not the same as one entity taking over the whole railway. The only entities to do that currently are DfT and NR.

And so an entity couldn't be created? Flawed rationale for perpetuating a bent and broken system.

 

[HSTEd]

Such an entity could be created for the cost of roughly £20 neccesary to file papers with Companies House to that effect.... although I suppose the state probably has an exemption from the cost.

 

[ainsworth74]

Such an entity could be created for the cost of roughly £20 neccesary to file papers with Companies House to that effect.... although I suppose the state probably has an exemption from the cost.

An entity maybe but an actual organisation that could actually do the job I suspect would have a slightly higher start up cost...

 

[HSTEd]

An entity maybe but an actual organisation that could actually do the job I suspect would have a slightly higher start up cost...

Indeed, but I imagine there will be vast numbers of staff with plenty of experience working in the railways looking for jobs after the state takes over all the franchises......

They could even use the same offices that would all be coming up for a new tenant.

You start with the existing structure and then start pruning to find efficiencies.

 

[notoemt]

Interesting article in the standard last night
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/...king-down-the-real-rail-culprits-8203849.html

 

[HH]

What is needed is not more Government intervention, but less. The biggest successes as Franchises, in terms of customer benefits, come from the letting by OPRAF/SRA which encouraged entrepreneurial flair by not overspecifying, and by picking based on the offer, not the price.

 

[jon0844]

Interesting article in the standard last night
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/...king-down-the-real-rail-culprits-8203849.html

It raises valid points but still seems rather political.

 

[island]

It raises valid points but still seems rather political.

The Standard? Political? Never :roll:

[I almost wrote "the Daily Mail group", but apparently the Daily Mail is now only a minority owner of the Standard.]

 

[Deerfold]

The Standard? Political? Never :roll:

[I almost wrote "the Daily Mail group", but apparently the Daily Mail is now only a minority owner of the Standard.]

Yes, the majority owner is an alleged ex-member of the KGB.

 

[HH]

You start with the existing structure and then start pruning to find efficiencies.

It won't work. TOC HQs are smaller than they were under BR, and smaller still when you compare the far greater number of passengers they now carry. Take any comparable government or quasi-government body and you will find the backoffice staff are roughly double (in terms of ratio to frontline staff). Hell, in hospitals the backoffice outnumbers the Doctors and Nurses.

Everyone knows this to be true. Why therefore do they keep insisting that a reinstated BR would be more efficient?