Is an operator of last resort likely to be an improvement over SWR? (and comparison with LNER)

[lordbusiness]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/swr-to-be-nationalised.197990/

Is OLR or a management contract likely to improve things? Same applies to Northern and TPE.

Has LNER improved on punctuality, reliability and customer service since the demise of VTEC?

 

[Malcolmffc]

Stagecoach had 21 years of experience running SWT, and kept the unions much happier than SWR. Of course the overbidding has everything to do with the strikes - they wouldn't have taken action had SWR not ordered 750 new (DOO) carriages as part of their bid.

Exactly the same would have happened with Stagecoach. The DfT would have insisted on DOO capabale stock to replace the 455s et al.

In addition, VTEC was 90% owned by Stagecoach - and we all know how that turned out.

 

[180zephyr]

Stagecoach (and Virgin for that matter) would have a field day with this. The franchise they lost, now been bailed out by Government, and yet when they had the same issue they got OLR?

I’m sure the DfT are just hoping Avanti keeps its hands clean of any trouble - VT was the only TOC that’s had good press when it left!

Remember that VTEC/LNER and VT/Avanti are far simpler franchises to run than SWR. Those operate entirely LDHS services, only a few hundred a day each; SWR on the other hand operates over 1000 trains each day, almost all used by commuters. Also, SWR has a challenging mix of all-station commuter trains, long-distance services to Weymouth and Exeter, several branch lines and the (loss-making) Island Line.

My point is that the just because OLR went (relatively) fine with East Coast/LNER doesn't mean it would work with SWR. I guess the only example of government intervention on a SWR-type franchise would be Southeastern (2003-2006) - no personal experience of how that went.

 

[ScotGG]

My point is that the just because OLR went (relatively) fine with East Coast/LNER doesn't mean it would work with SWR. I guess the only example of government intervention on a SWR-type franchise would be Southeastern (2003-2006) - no personal experience of how that went.

Southeastern under state control was much better than Connex or GoVia after. Communications improved hugely, and that's something that TOCs do have power over. GoVia eventually improved but it took a huge amount of time. Probably post 2012 when the franchise started in 2006.

SE is of course another franchise where no one knows the future. Add SWR to the pile.

 

[pdeaves]

In addition, VTEC was 90% owned by Stagecoach - and we all know how that turned out.

Actually, 94.9%! VTEC was 90% Stagecoach and 10% Virgin Rail Group, which in turn was 49% Stagecoach.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Actually, 94.9%! VTEC was 90% Stagecoach and 10% Virgin Rail Group, which in turn was 49% Stagecoach.

Do you have any evidence for this, out of interest? All sources I can find show it was the main Virgin Group with the share.

 

[pdeaves]

Do you have any evidence for this, out of interest? All sources I can find show it was the main Virgin Group with the share.

This annual account states "Stagecoach Group has a 49% shareholding in a joint venture, Virgin Rail Group". This one gives the 90/10 split on East Coast.

 

[omnicity4659]

This annual account states "Stagecoach Group has a 49% shareholding in a joint venture, Virgin Rail Group". This one gives the 90/10 split on East Coast.

VRG had nothing to do with East Coast.

The company set up, of which Stagecoach had a 90% share and Virgin 10% was called Inter City Railways.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Has LNER improved on punctuality, reliability and customer service since the demise of VTEC?

VTEC didn't fail because of any of those things, it was just the finances that went wrong.
We have no idea what targets LNER has relative to VTEC (other than deliver the same plans).

 

[Goldfish62]

VTEC didn't fail because of any of those things, it was just the finances that went wrong.
We have no idea what targets LNER has relative to VTEC (other than deliver the same plans).

It all seems to have gone very quiet. There's certainly not the crowing about how wonderful it all is like we had with East Coast.

 

[island]

Do you have any evidence for this, out of interest? All sources I can find show it was the main Virgin Group with the share.

I think you’re thinking of Virgin Trains West Coast, which was 51% Virgin 49% Stagecoach. VTEC was 90/10 a Stagecoach.

I am sure a quick a Google can confirm this.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I think you’re thinking of Virgin Trains West Coast, which was 51% Virgin 49% Stagecoach. VTEC was 90/10 a Stagecoach.

I am sure a quick a Google can confirm this.

Yes- the post I quoted said it was Virgin Rail Group owned 10% of VTEC, making it 94.9% Stagecoach.

 

[Helvellyn]

Yes- the post I quoted said it was Virgin Rail Group owned 10% of VTEC, making it 94.9% Stagecoach.

I can categorically assure you that, as others have said, Virgin Rail Group (VRG) had nothing to do with VTEC.

VRG was the holding company fo the West Coast and CrossCountry franchises. A 49% stake was sold to Stagecoach Group. Stagecoach was semi-detached from VRG in that various things SWT/EMT (and later VTEC) collaborated on at a Group level didn't involve VRG.

VTEC was 90% Stagecoach Group and 10% Virgin Group. Again as been pointed out the holding company they formed was InterCity Railways Limited. This in turn bought East Coast Main Line Company which had been the DOR operation, which remained the legal operating entity but it traded as VTEC.

The West Coast Partnership bid was 50% Stagecoach, 30% SNCF and 20% Virgin Group. If the Virgin bid had won then VRG would have been out and the new ownership structure in place, even if many of the Directors would likely have moved across.

 

[Goldfish62]

.
180zephyr said: ↑
Stagecoach had 21 years of experience running SWT, and kept the unions much happier than SWR. Of course the overbidding has everything to do with the strikes - they wouldn't have taken action had SWR not ordered 750 new (DOO) carriages as part of their bid.

That's a rather simplistic view.

Stagecoach nearly lost the franchise within the first year because it went in like a bull in a china shop. Service quality was appalling for the first few years. It came good in the 2000s, though, but there was some industrial strife, which I believe may have been through making Sundays part of the working week.

The Class 458s, which Stagecoach ordered as compensation for messing up the franchise initially, were designed for DOO and at the same time Stagecoach equipped suburban platforms with DOO equipment. They however backed down as soon as industrial action was threatened and there obviously wasn't any political will at the time to wage war with the unions.

It's pretty much well established that SWT had quite generous franchise terms throughout their tenure. It was only in the last franchise that it became more onerous and their response was to virtually stop internal train cleaning and it also coincides with service performance starting to decline. One of the most significant events was the move of the control room from Waterloo to Basingstoke in 2017, but performance had been declining since 2011.

It's true that SWT was very experienced in running such an intensive network (and so they should be after running it for two decades), but to suggest that everything would have been rosy had SWT continued is simply not borne out by reality.

The inference that the ordering of new stock caused the strikes is bonkers. It's the method of working that's the issue, not the stock. In any event, and I don't know how many times it has to be repeated, the franchise specification required the replacement of the 455s and 456s anyway because they couldn't meet the specification in terms of capacity or dwell times.

Stagecoach didn't rock the boat because it didn't have to financially and was under no political pressure to do so. Whoever won the franchise and was under pressure to change the role of the guard would have been on a collision course with the staff on the only inner suburban network in London that still has guards.

 

[Helvellyn]

Stagecoach nearly lost the franchise within the first year because it went in like a bull in a china shop. Service quality was appalling for the first few years. It came good in the 2000s, though, but there was some industrial strife, which I believe may have been through making Sundays part of the working week.

They saw an opportunity to cut costs but a combination of too many Drivers taking redundancy and attrition left them understaffed. Not a quick situation to get yourself out of given the length of training so it was an own goal that was painfully visible for an amount of time.

Drivers, Guards and Revenue Protection were all restructured and had Sundays brought into the working week. The benefit was it wiped out a load of allowances and gave a decent salary. Much better for getting things like a mortgage.

Plans to restructure platform and ticket office staff to bring Sundays into their working week fell through. Part of the reason was a Guards strike - forever termed the red waistcoat strike. It didn't succeed due to contingency plans and all-out Guards strikes never really were a a factor for Stagecoach. But there was some lingering resentment from some in those station grades that lost out on restructuring.

The Class 458s, which Stagecoach ordered as compensation for messing up the franchise initially, were designed for DOO and at the same time Stagecoach equipped suburban platforms with DOO equipment. They however backed down as soon as industrial action was threatened and there obviously wasn't any political will at the time to wage war with the unions.

It was NSE that was wanting to introduce DOO. The 456s were originally intended for Windsor side services to partly replace 2-HAPS. I am jot sure if Stagecoach considered it. If they did the Driver shortage issues maybe killed it off pretty quickly.

It's pretty much well established that SWT had quite generous franchise terms throughout their tenure. It was only in the last franchise that it became more onerous and their response was to virtually stop internal train cleaning and it also coincides with service performance starting to decline. One of the most significant events was the move of the control room from Waterloo to Basingstoke in 2017, but performance had been declining since 2011.

The original franchise term, like many others, was very generous. The second, aborted franchise, would have been a twenty year deal like Chilten. Massive investment was planned including rebuilding and relocating Clapham as well as gold plating infrastructure from Surbiton inward to improve service resilience.

When the twenty year deal was quashed they got a short term deal until 2007. Even during that the SRA didn't let them take all the 450 units they wasted and hence why Silverlink/Central trains got the 350/1 units. Stagecoach wanted to deliver a ten-car railway on the Windsor side ten years before it happened.

The 2007 franchise was a lot tougher and demanded huge premiums. It was bid before the 2008/09 financial crisis and yes a lot of costs were trimmed in response to that to keep the franchise afloat. Stagecoach at the time made a lot of comments about being committed to staying put and not walking away. By the end some of those cost cuts were regretted but just adding them back in is easier said than done. Approximately half the fare box was going in premiums to the Treasury in the last few years while the Stagecoach cut was 2-3%.

It's true that SWT was very experienced in running such an intensive network (and so they should be after running it for two decades), but to suggest that everything would have been rosy had SWT continued is simply not borne out by reality.

The inference that the ordering of new stock caused the strikes is bonkers. It's the method of working that's the issue, not the stock. In any event, and I don't know how many times it has to be repeated, the franchise specification required the replacement of the 455s and 456s anyway because they couldn't meet the specification in terms of capacity or dwell times.

Stagecoach didn't rock the boat because it didn't have to financially and was under no political pressure to do so. Whoever won the franchise and was under pressure to change the role of the guard would have been on a collision course with the staff on the only inner suburban network in London that still has guards.

Stagecoach had no plans to change the role of the Guard. That was the choice of First/MTR in part to to try and improve performance. Stagecoach had been trying to negotiate a reduced working week with Guards in the last couple of years. The workforce rejected a deal to drop from 42 to 40 hours that came with a guarantee to start talks immediately to make a further reduction if Stagecoach retained the franchise. They made this guarantee because it was stated they were not planning to change the role.

 

[Helvellyn]

To come back to (the split thread) topic I guess a comparison with LNER must be that DfT are satisfied with the performance of LNER and believe it is a model that can work for them. Unlike the previous East Coast nationalised operation OLR is a private consortium tasked with ensuring the TOC operates to tight targets.

Politically management contracts would be seen as rewarding failure. There is view that VTEC ended as much for political reasons as financial in that a VTEC management contract wouldn't have delivered much more than OLR.

Plus with William's around the corner it gives the Government a potential pool of franchises to move to the new model alongside franchises coming to a natural end, which in turn means that come the next election the Government can hopefully point to a changed model that is delivering.

 

[Goldfish62]

They saw an opportunity to cut costs but a combination of too many Drivers taking redundancy and attrition left them understaffed. Not a quick situation to get yourself out of given the length of training so it was an own goal that was painfully visible for an amount of time.

Drivers, Guards and Revenue Protection were all restructured and had Sundays brought into the working week. The benefit was it wiped out a load of allowances and gave a decent salary. Much better for getting things like a mortgage.

Plans to restructure platform and ticket office staff to bring Sundays into their working week fell through. Part of the reason was a Guards strike - forever termed the red waistcoat strike. It didn't succeed due to contingency plans and all-out Guards strikes never really were a a factor for Stagecoach. But there was some lingering resentment from some in those station grades that lost out on restructuring.


It was NSE that was wanting to introduce DOO. The 456s were originally intended for Windsor side services to partly replace 2-HAPS. I am jot sure if Stagecoach considered it. If they did the Driver shortage issues maybe killed it off pretty quickly.


The original franchise term, like many others, was very generous. The second, aborted franchise, would have been a twenty year deal like Chilten. Massive investment was planned including rebuilding and relocating Clapham as well as gold plating infrastructure from Surbiton inward to improve service resilience.

When the twenty year deal was quashed they got a short term deal until 2007. Even during that the SRA didn't let them take all the 450 units they wasted and hence why Silverlink/Central trains got the 350/1 units. Stagecoach wanted to deliver a ten-car railway on the Windsor side ten years before it happened.

The 2007 franchise was a lot tougher and demanded huge premiums. It was bid before the 2008/09 financial crisis and yes a lot of costs were trimmed in response to that to keep the franchise afloat. Stagecoach at the time made a lot of comments about being committed to staying put and not walking away. By the end some of those cost cuts were regretted but just adding them back in is easier said than done. Approximately half the fare box was going in premiums to the Treasury in the last few years while the Stagecoach cut was 2-3%.


Stagecoach had no plans to change the role of the Guard. That was the choice of First/MTR in part to to try and improve performance. Stagecoach had been trying to negotiate a reduced working week with Guards in the last couple of years. The workforce rejected a deal to drop from 42 to 40 hours that came with a guarantee to start talks immediately to make a further reduction if Stagecoach retained the franchise. They made this guarantee because it was stated they were not planning to change the role.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for expanding on my post.

On DOO, yes NSE did try it, but Stagecoach also had plans for it. Although NSE had installed some equipment Stagecoach further added to this and cameras started appearing on platforms before it was halted. A couple of the monitors at Egham were subsequently turned to observe the car park instead! I believe one the early reliability issues on the Class 468s was due to the TMS being programmed for everything being done from the front cab, not for a second crew member to be elsewhere on the train operating the doors. This is why there was only one intermediate guard's panel, which only had a door close button. In the early days, when commercial guards were much more prevalent on the Reading occasionally drivers would (very unofficially) release the doors to allow the guard to continue revenue checks!

Anyway, must stop rambling...

 

[Cavan]

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for expanding on my post.

On DOO, yes NSE did try it, but Stagecoach also had plans for it. Although NSE had installed some equipment Stagecoach further added to this and cameras started appearing on platforms before it was halted. A couple of the monitors at Egham were subsequently turned to observe the car park instead! I believe one the early reliability issues on the Class 468s was due to the TMS being programmed for everything being done from the front cab, not for a second crew member to be elsewhere on the train operating the doors. This is why there was only one intermediate guard's panel, which only had a door close button. In the early days, when commercial guards were much more prevalent on the Reading occasionally drivers would (very unofficially) release the doors to allow the guard to continue revenue checks!

Anyway, must stop rambling...

Yes, NSE installed DOO mirrors on the windsor side - Barnes still had it for years until the platform extension. Did NSE ever actually run services on the windsor side as DOO?

 

[43096]

Yes, NSE installed DOO mirrors on the windsor side - Barnes still had it for years until the platform extension. Did NSE ever actually run services on the windsor side as DOO?

I don't believe anything on South West Division has run as DOO-P.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, NSE installed DOO mirrors on the windsor side - Barnes still had it for years until the platform extension. Did NSE ever actually run services on the windsor side as DOO?

I don't believe so.