Franchise obligations not delivered

jayah

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,227
Cross Country were fined around 2011 for not delivering WiFi on the promised timescales.

Almost all deadlines based on rolling stock, infrastructure or timetables aren't met on time, in the latter cases there must be some sort of negotiating as it is actually Network Rails fault.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
12,706
The TOC needs to come to an agreement with NR, specify and probably fund it.
For GA, they had to fund it, and were going to do the work themselves. AIUI they then found out that platform extensions can actually be quite difficult...
 

bb21

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
23,784
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.
That is a rather big sweeping statement. The DfT certainly aren't bending over backwards and not holding franchisees to account. It potentially depends on the areas of responsibility, and recently there seems to be more emphasis on compliance in my experience, to the point of being rather obsessive and overly-pedantic.

It is however fair to say that they can be rather amenable to negotiations and more open about reality than before.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,504
Location
Essex
That is a rather big sweeping statement. The DfT certainly aren't bending over backwards and not holding franchisees to account. It potentially depends on the areas of responsibility, and recently there seems to be more emphasis on compliance in my experience, to the point of being rather obsessive and overly-pedantic.

It is however fair to say that they can be rather amenable to negotiations and more open about reality than before.
It was a sweeping statement, and as with all such, it is clearly an overstatement. However, GA has fallen down all over the shop, including in areas that they have complete control of and I know that GTR has been cut a lot of slack. Moreover, I have heard it from DfT themselves that they are "treading lightly". That doesn't mean that they are not being pedantic around all the myriad obligations; after all, they are civil servants.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
It was a sweeping statement, and as with all such, it is clearly an overstatement. However, GA has fallen down all over the shop, including in areas that they have complete control of and I know that GTR has been cut a lot of slack. Moreover, I have heard it from DfT themselves that they are "treading lightly". That doesn't mean that they are not being pedantic around all the myriad obligations; after all, they are civil servants.
They will have to be careful around East Midlands in particular. Too much slack after exclusions would likely lead to even more legal action..
 

47421

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2012
Messages
491
Location
london
That the train service specification could be turned into a viable timetable, for one.
Do you have any insights on what is going on behind the scenes with GA? Is it a given for example that there will be a mass derogation for all the non-compliant 317s and 321? What about the problem of 5 and 10 car 720s not fitting in various places (Wickford, Manningtree bays, Hertford East etc, eg is HE going to go t a 5car service only for a while?). And on the timetable how is that going to play out? If the bid timetable can never be delivered isnt there going to be a surplus of new units (eg the hourly Ipswich to Peterborough has been abandoned UFN apparently - thats 2 bimodes spare forever?) Who will suffer the leasing cost of them?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,506
If the bid timetable can never be delivered isn't there going to be a surplus of new units (eg the hourly Ipswich to Peterborough has been abandoned UFN apparently - thats 2 bimodes spare forever?) Who will suffer the leasing cost of them?
Usually it is the other way round and there isn't enough stock as they didn't include key real world assumptions originally developing the bid TT from the TSR. (e.g. simple things like unit/train turnaround times or diesel tank sizes (and hence refuelling intervals)
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
12,706
Do you have any insights on what is going on behind the scenes with GA? Is it a given for example that there will be a mass derogation for all the non-compliant 317s and 321? What about the problem of 5 and 10 car 720s not fitting in various places (Wickford, Manningtree bays, Hertford East etc, eg is HE going to go t a 5car service only for a while?). And on the timetable how is that going to play out? If the bid timetable can never be delivered isnt there going to be a surplus of new units (eg the hourly Ipswich to Peterborough has been abandoned UFN apparently - thats 2 bimodes spare forever?) Who will suffer the leasing cost of them?
I don’t have any insights, and if I did I’m afraid I wouldn’t be putting them on here!
 

GW43125

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2014
Messages
1,894
SWR's 4tph to Reading that should've started in December. Unfortunately, Network Rail won't approve the paths (or so I'm told). Annoying really, as they really fill up!
 

BurtonM

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2014
Messages
775
Location
Manchester
Is that not something to do with getting to the tram stop though
The station overbridge is a right of way iirc and can't be gated as such. Partially for the tram stop partially for more direct access to the Park Hill area, I think. I'm sure I've seen revenue at the bottom of stairs to platforms before.
 

njamescouk

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2017
Messages
147
The station overbridge is a right of way iirc and can't be gated as such. Partially for the tram stop partially for more direct access to the Park Hill area, I think. I'm sure I've seen revenue at the bottom of stairs to platforms before.
no idea of the legalities but Sheffield council put up half (?) the money for the bridge refurb. mml (?) put people with attitude on either end of the bridge and told the public to use the really rather nasty overbridge to the west of the station. cue a huge fuss by public, media and council and the trainco backed down.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
3,190
What appears to us as a breach of the franchise agreement might actually be part of a revised agreement between the two parties, arising from a clearer appreciation of the realities.
Absolutely, it appears a TOC only need operate the timetable they inherit reasonably on a day to day basis, preferably no worse than their predecessor, anything else is up for negotiations
 
Last edited:

Top