Is everyone tired of franchising?

[gimmea50anyday]

It wouldn't matter if people were sick to the back teeth of franchising, the EU loves the British concept because it means companies from different countries can bid to run each other's railway systems, so it is here to stay whether we like it or not.

So why was British Rail never allowed to bid for British franchises in the same way NS, SNCF or DB can do? Or indeed for any other foreign concession, much as DB and National Express do?

Probably because the tories were hell bent on dismantling and privatizing as much of BR as they could as quickly as possible for as much money as possible before losing the following election!

Perhaps making best use of BR's efficiency while employing private companies customer service training and knowledge might have created a far better service without the cost. Had BR received the level of subsidy the industry gets now we would have a world leading railway.

Any discussion of franchising stalls until there is an answer to the Wolmar question - what is franchising for? Efficiency? Competition? Saving taxpayers' money? Providing better trains/service? All of the above?

Absolutely!

 

[aylesbury]

John Major wanted four companies to run the railways under privatisation but civil servants changed the franchise model and he was no longer PM.Rolling stock companies are the best way to procure stock and carry the initial cost but work with a TOC to ensure the stock arrives as required.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

No I read it the right way. It was money going into the pockets of Conservative Party Donors (the implications of which must be obvious, even to fools of the hairy handed variety ). My point is I'm not aware of any of the owning groups donating money to the Conservative party. Most have a policy of not making any political donations. Whatever the faults of the franchise system, patronage isn't one of them.....

"Privatisation is a scam to divert taxpayers' money into the pockets of the Conservative Party's friends and donors..."

Taxpayers money tends to refer to money paid to Government by the everyday person (and companies where they bother to do so) in the form of Taxes. This money then being used to fund various things like the NHS and the education system.... Oh, and the railway.

The Conservative Party's friends and Donors could realistically be anyone, but the key here is that the money is implied to be going to the friends/donors and not to the Conservative Party.

So that leaves us with "Money from Government going into the pockets of their friends and donors". This does seem to be very different from Brian Souter giving the Tory's a bit of cash.

 

[Harbornite]

Imagine if twitter et al had existed when British Rail did, you'd find plenty of people moaning about it. People will always moan if they can.

 

[al78]

While the current arrangements aren't perfect, the sheer numbers of people using the railways doesn't suggest that privatisation/franchising was a disaster either

The numbers of passengers isn't really a good indicator of how good the railways, or privatisation is. People don't tend to use railways for the pleasure of travelling, they use them to make utility journeys like commuting to work where using a car is either prohibitively expensive, inconvenient, impractical or stressful. The increase in passenger numbers has more to do with increasing population, the unaffordability of housing in some urban areas where the jobs are forcing people to live a distance from work that requires motorised transport, and the desire for people to have their well paid job in the city and a nice house in the country, thus choosing jobs and homes 50+ miles apart. Overcrowding on trains could possibly be partially eased if the population collectively chose to live more localised lifestyles, but I don't see that happening unless there is some massive external forcing.

 

[Mikey C]

The numbers of passengers isn't really a good indicator of how good the railways, or privatisation is. People don't tend to use railways for the pleasure of travelling, they use them to make utility journeys like commuting to work where using a car is either prohibitively expensive, inconvenient, impractical or stressful. The increase in passenger numbers has more to do with increasing population, the unaffordability of housing in some urban areas where the jobs are forcing people to live a distance from work that requires motorised transport, and the desire for people to have their well paid job in the city and a nice house in the country, thus choosing jobs and homes 50+ miles apart. Overcrowding on trains could possibly be partially eased if the population collectively chose to live more localised lifestyles, but I don't see that happening unless there is some massive external forcing.

That doesn't explain the rise in leisure travelling, and the number of young people choosing not to drive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

More likely they see the grass as greener on the public owned side of the hill, because they never experienced BR.

There is no panacea, neither public ownership, nor private, nor even a mix of the two, will produce the perfect railway. What certainly could be improved is the current method of working, and I see the biggest problem in that being DfT. I take as proof of this that both ScotRail and London Overground run somewhat better than DfT's franchises, and the franchises that tend to run best have not been on the template franchise agreement.

That might partially be the case. On the other hand, people who grew up used to a choice of private mobile phone operators, the whole world of the internet, phones and IT completely driven by private companies, Amazon, Uber, Tesla etc may not necessarily want the old BR style model back either.

 

[PHILIPE]

People go on about the dark days of British Rail, but I think it would be quite different now as long as there were efficient people running it and sort out shortcomings unlike the past. Just think how much money would be saved if the DFT Department, the ORR were to be wiped out. Probably lawyers fees incurred joining the fragmented parts together. New developments and changes could move at a faster pace than they do now with so many internal parties involved and all the dithering that takes place in decision making..

 

[Camden]

So why was British Rail never allowed to bid for British franchises in the same way NS, SNCF or DB can do? Or indeed for any other foreign concession, much as DB and National Express do?

Probably because the tories were hell bent on dismantling and privatizing as much of BR as they could as quickly as possible for as much money as possible before losing the following election!

Perhaps making best use of BR's efficiency while employing private companies customer service training and knowledge might have created a far better service without the cost. Had BR received the level of subsidy the industry gets now we would have a world leading railway.

Don't understand your point in relation to mine (which is that peoples' objections mean nothing because the commercialised set up is now an EU objective).

British privatisation happened first, so that's why BR were not allowed to bid. As a government pursuing a privatisation agenda, there would have been no point in allowing it.

As for other countries having state owned companies bidding for the franchises, the priority seems rather different. There you have countries who did not want to privatise their railways but which were forced to do so by the EU, introducing "competition", "opening up the rail markets" and so on. Whether they are allowed to carry on doing this longer term remains to be seen, but I suppose you could reasonably assume there is nothing to stop DOR from bidding to run a railway line in Germany provided it is run the same way DB is.

Doesn't change that franchising is here to stay whether people (or government) like it or not. Even if you have a DOR bidding for franchises, it will still have to be awarded to a winner based on a criteria that offers that state company no advantage (and thus could just as easily end up in the hands of any of the existing operators). Nationalisation is not compatible with what is allowed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Another genie which got out of the bottle on privatisation was the periodic opening up to criticism of plans for each of the routes/franchises.
BR was used to working on its route plans in secrecy, and presented them pretty much as a fait accompli to users and government.
It was able to switch funds as it liked, protect its favoured projects and starve others, within its overall budget.
There was nothing like the current Control Period cycle for public consumption, or Route Utilisation Studies, or enhancement project milestones, or train service specifications or PPM measures.
The world and his dog now want to scrutinise every proposal in case their 0822 to London is affected.

"The Railway" is now much more accountable than it used to be.
The government (any flavour) is not going to let things go back to the lazy arms-length setup that used to apply.
BR was heading in the right direction (sectors, pricing by demand etc) but there had to be a revolution to bring it up to date.
A future state-controlled passenger railway would not look like BR, and I doubt there will be a single "owner".
For a start, devolution will mean a fragmented railway (Wales, Scotland and English regions).
The "fat controller" era will not come back, even in a publicly-owned setup.

 

[Harpers Tate]

(1)Who at Sheffield is trained to take a 142/ 143/ 153/ 158 (or other type of DMU commonly found to be "spare" at Midland Station) to Derby?
Is the stock permitted on that route (Pacers can't go south of Chesterfield, AIUI)?
(2)Even if the 75mph DMU can get from Sheffield to Derby in the path that the 125mph train was due to take(?), is there a spare path back (slotted in between the various Voyagers/ Meridians?
(3) Have you got time to couple two or three Sprinters/ Pacers together to ensure that all passengers on the InterCity service get a seat?
(4) What was the "spare" DMU and the two(?) members of staff due to be doing?.

The only reason given at the time for there being a bus rather than a train was that the spare trains belong to someone else, which is my point. However.....
(1) It's an occasional Northern route so 158s at least can do it and presumably drivers sign the route.
(2) 90mph - but I couldn't speak for paths and neither do I know the line speeds, which might easily be closer to 90 than 125 for much of it anyway.
(3) we all fitted on to one single decker so <50 of us.
(4) Same thing as the "spare" bus and driver were supposed to be doing, I guess.

 

[222ben]

There's a thread on here somewhere showing that, in actual fact, a Class 156 *was* commandeered and sent south to operate in place of a failed 222.

So this can be done, and is done.

Similarly, Pacers have got to Reading substituting for HSTs before.

It probably helps that it's the same TOC.

Whatt.........must have been a horrendous journey 100+miles on a Pacer..........mmmmaaarrrggghhhhhh............

 

[ChiefPlanner]

BR managers of the era had to

(a) Do the day job and run a safe service - note there was no investment bar safety schemes and Channel Tunnel works - as schemes were put on hold.
(b) Reorganise post the "OFQ" ("Organising for Quality") - which gave a joined up business led railway -but which lasted for about 15 months. Dismantle it.

(c) Work to split out infrastructure from operations - ditto split out heavy engineering stock wise from day to day depot mtc.
(d) Break up "Railfreight" into 3 seperate companies because "consultants said that was the way forward ! ...(+ Freightliner and RFD) - got that wrong didn't they.
(e) Reduce costs
(f) Write their own obituary by writing "long from" reports for potential bidders - so the latter knew what they were "purchasing" - a massive task.
(g) Maintain morale.
(h) Try and have a family and personal life. (remember most senior managers were "on call" at least 50%of the time
(i) Maybe try and build up a Management Buy Out. (which the BRB did give some money for)

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Before franchising, would drivers have signed more routes and traction then what they might do now?

 

[PHILIPE]

Before franchising, would drivers have signed more routes and traction then what they might do now?

Yes. Examples, Exeter Drivers working to Waterloo and Paddington. Bristol crews working to Paddington and Birmingham.

 

[cjmillsnun]

What people also forget, or haven't experienced, is how grim some parts of BR actually were. While I know it exaggerates the point slightly, the Victoria Wood Great Railway Journey is very educational.

But some parts of BR were extremely good.

Some parts of the privatised railway are extremely good.

And some parts of the privatised railway are extremely grim indeed.

In other words, it's inconclusive.

 

[yorksrob]

More likely they see the grass as greener on the public owned side of the hill, because they never experienced BR.

And have you experienced BR ? I did and much like today it was fine most of the time.

In terms of whether I'm tired of franchising, I'm on my fourth incarnation of the ECML. I'm not sure the experience has changed all that much, certainly not in steerage. Some of the cheaper fares are more difficult to come by than previous versions, but then again, we do have twice as many services to London from Leeds.

The South Eastern where I grew up has changed quite considerably with new trains (which are a mixed blessing because I preferred the old ones) and of course HS1 - but then again, you can't really put that down to the franchising system.

But then again, the new franchises recently announced for Northern Rail and TPE seem to have come with an intended step change in the level of service, so with DfT agreement, a change of franchise can be a useful opportunity to reappraise service levels and implement changes (fortunately for the better currently). Perhaps that's the nub of it.

 

[cjmillsnun]

John Major wanted four companies to run the railways under privatisation but civil servants changed the franchise model and he was no longer PM.Rolling stock companies are the best way to procure stock and carry the initial cost but work with a TOC to ensure the stock arrives as required.

The very last franchise was let whilst John Major was PM.

 

[SCH117X]

The wonders of the franchised railway - daily ECS from Nottingham to Liverpool at very early am (no doubt other crazy examples exist). Main beneficiaries of franchising are probably vinyl livery makers!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

But some parts of BR were extremely good.

Some parts of the privatised railway are extremely good.

And some parts of the privatised railway are extremely grim indeed.

In other words, it's inconclusive.

But BR got a subsidy of around £100K a day for a national network - we now have a gap between income / expenditure and investment of around £4 Billion per annum and NR has debts of circa £30 Billion.

Discuss

 

[Cowley]

Before franchising, would drivers have signed more routes and traction then what they might do now?

But BR got a subsidy of around £100K a day for a national network - we now have a gap between income / expenditure and investment of around £4 Billion per annum and NR has debts of circa £30 Billion.

Discuss

This is very true but the extra layers of health and safety have caused a lot of price rises in infrastructure work that probably would have happened anyway to some degree.

 

[Clip]

But BR got a subsidy of around £100K a day for a national network - we now have a gap between income / expenditure and investment of around £4 Billion per annum and NR has debts of circa £30 Billion.

Discuss

Have you weighted that for inflation from the end of BR to now?

 

[cjmillsnun]

But BR got a subsidy of around £100K a day for a national network - we now have a gap between income / expenditure and investment of around £4 Billion per annum and NR has debts of circa £30 Billion.

Discuss

This has a few reasons.

One, the inefficiencies of contracting out. Done properly, doing stuff in house can be cost effective. BR just before the maintenance drought was there.

Two, the safety culture was already creeping in (thank goodness). After Clapham S&T work was done to a higher standard, ATP was on trial (and would've been more widely used on the GWML initially - meaning it would have been unlikely that Southall would've happened), although the decision to not have widespread retrofitting of ATP on all lines by Railtrack was influenced by BR, and TPWS would almost certainly have gone into use much sooner than it did.

Three, delay attribution. This was a mechanism after OFQ, that was introduced because by then it was known that the railway was going to be privatised. Without privatisation, it wouldn't have happened.

Four, track maintenance and renewal. Possessions were much less of an issue under BR. If the work needed doing it was scheduled in, and then it was done.

Five. BR's approach to modernisation. Pioneered by Chris Green, the concept of Total Route Modernisation was gaining a foothold. One only needs to see the position Chiltern was left in after privatisation to show what BR could do when it concentrated all its capex spend in one area. New trains, new signalling, new track, completly refurbished stations = a really good railway.

Now that's not to say BR was perfect, it wasn't. But it was getting the basics right.

 

[Mikey C]

This is very true but the extra layers of health and safety have caused a lot of price rises in infrastructure work that probably would have happened anyway to some degree.

Indeed one of the great mysteries is how things are SO much more expensive to do now when compared with 30/40/50 years ago. Yes, H&S has had an effect, and things are done to a more gold plated standard now, but it's still shocking.

Back in the 60s and early 70s, never mind electrification schemes like the WCML, the heart of the Motorway system was built, the M1, M3, M4, M5, M6 etc

Leaving aside political and environmental issues, can you imagine the M6 being built now, all those elevated sections through Birmingham would be unaffordable.

 

[HH]

And have you experienced BR ?.

Not only did I experience it a lot, my father worked on it all his life. I particularly remember dreadful crowding (it was worse on those old train carriages with no vestibule) and strikes every winter. When I read how wonderful it was, I wonder if people lived in an alternate universe to the one I did.

 

[45107]

Not only did I experience it a lot, my father worked on it all his life. I particularly remember dreadful crowding (it was worse on those old train carriages with no vestibule) and strikes every winter. When I read how wonderful it was, I wonder if people lived in an alternate universe to the one I did.

Any evidence of 'Strikes every winter' on BR ? Which year did they start (and finish)

 

[Bletchleyite]

And have you experienced BR ? I did and much like today it was fine most of the time.

If you want a foreign take on what BR of today might have been like, go and ride on SBB. It has much more of the feel of "a basic but well-run piece of infrastructure" than the far glitzier approach taken by the TOCs here.

 

[Harbornite]

Indeed one of the great mysteries is how things are SO much more expensive to do now when compared with 30/40/50 years ago. Yes, H&S has had an effect, and things are done to a more gold plated standard now, but it's still shocking.

Back in the 60s and early 70s, never mind electrification schemes like the WCML, the heart of the Motorway system was built, the M1, M3, M4, M5, M6 etc

Leaving aside political and environmental issues, can you imagine the M6 being built now, all those elevated sections through Birmingham would be unaffordable.

Back in the 1960's, the city was willing to clear areas of slum housing, such as those which the m6 passed through, this helped matters.

 

[Richard_B]

I will start by saying I am reasonably lefty politically so would not have any ideological issues with full renationalisation, but I'm not so lefty that I believe we should renationalise on ideological grounds alone. To me two things stick out in the comparison of franchise or nationalise debate.

Firstly the debate has to recognise that the situation the railway as a whole finds itself in as of 2016 is very different to 20 years ago and as such direct comparison is going to be very difficult and nuanced. The doubling of passenger numbers alone makes it a whole different kettle of fish.

Secondly the main issue I have with franchising is ROSCOS. Ostensibly we are told that franchising is good because it introduces competition. Even accepting this as true, competition simply is meaningless in the current framework of ROSCOS. The way that trains are specialised and each class being *far* more suited to run certain services combined with there not being an adundance of spare stock - because if there was it would be in use - means that competiton in stock terms is not feasibile or meaningful once stock has been purchased. In no serious world are the Pendelinos competing with mk4 and loco for use on the WCMl. Pacers and 15x are not competing with hst for Paddington to Bristol services. This means that ROSCOS are simply inefficient - cash cows for owners - but not helping the railway become the effecient, cheap(ish?) service that franchising is supposed to bring.
Having said all of that I'm not sure if the framework of franchisees not owning the trains works without wide nationalising of ROSCOS , at which point you might as well go the whole way and run the trains as well from Gment

 

[yorksrob]

Not only did I experience it a lot, my father worked on it all his life. I particularly remember dreadful crowding (it was worse on those old train carriages with no vestibule) and strikes every winter. When I read how wonderful it was, I wonder if people lived in an alternate universe to the one I did.

Well, you must have had a lot of strikes in your area because we didn't have them every winter.

As for dreadful crowding, I've experienced that on numerous occasions across the privatised system, so it clearly isn't a problem confined to BR.

 

[HH]

Well, you must have had a lot of strikes in your area because we didn't have them every winter.

I think you either have a selective memory or were young at the time of privatisation.

As for dreadful crowding, I've experienced that on numerous occasions across the privatised system, so it clearly isn't a problem confined to BR.

No, but neither is it a problem confined to privatisation - which is my point. I've certainly not experienced crowding as bad on any modern train, even though I agree that many of them are badly overcrowded.