Mersey & Gtr Manchester calls for Arriva to lose Northern franchise

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
21,849
Location
Redcar
It is almost as if posters here think contracts are a new idea! I bet the contract has all kinds of damages for late delivery built in. You can enforce them all you like. It wont get your train delivered any sooner which is the big issue here!
I mean you've pretty much stolen my follow up there :lol:

I was going to go on to ask what @158756 could tell us about the contract that meant it was so deficient so as to not properly incentivise CAF. Because I had assumed that any such contract would include plenty as standard.

they should have found one, poached some stock from elsewhere, funded the 319 conversion, something. If they bring no additional expertise to the table there's no reason not to nationalise it.
What stock? Poached from where? I am unaware of much stock sitting around spare (apart from the HSTs that have recently come on the market). There are a few rakes of loco hauled I suppose that could still be cobbled together if required. But that's about it. Plus that tends to come with it's own issues (see the famed unreliability of the 37s on the Cumbrian Coast).

The 319 conversion is ongoing but also late Northern are supposed to be receiving some but are still waiting for them to be accepted into service.

You'll forgive me but I just don't see that it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

158756

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,100
It is almost as if posters here think contracts are a new idea! I bet the contract has all kinds of damages for late delivery built in. You can enforce them all you like. It wont get your train delivered any sooner which is the big issue here!
It certainly will (or should) have penalties for late delivery. Clearly either they weren't enough to get CAF to work to time, or CAF are not a competent manufacturer of trains, in which case Arriva shouldn't have chosen them, however cheaply they were offering the trains - remember CAF were an attractive option for Arriva essentially because no one else wanted their product.

There should also be penalties for failing to deliver on the franchise contract. But Arriva are still around.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
23,934
Location
Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
I mean you've pretty much stolen my follow up there :lol:

I was going to go on to ask what @158756 could tell us about the contract that meant it was so deficient so as to not properly incentivise CAF. Because I had assumed that any such contract would include plenty as standard.



What stock? Poached from where? I am unaware of much stock sitting around spare (apart from the HSTs that have recently come on the market). There are a few rakes of loco hauled I suppose that could still be cobbled together if required. But that's about it. Plus that tends to come with it's own issues (see the famed unreliability of the 37s on the Cumbrian Coast).

The 319 conversion is ongoing but also late Northern are supposed to be receiving some but are still waiting for them to be accepted into service.

You'll forgive me but I just don't see that it's as simple as you're making it out to be.
Indeed! The issue with enforcing contractual penalties BEFORE delivery is the risk if the relationship between the contracting parties falls apart. That will in no way lead to a sub standard product! Get the issuss fixed, get delivery sorted out then chase for the money unless you want to terminate the entire relationship.

It is not simple but admitting that means admitting nortern arent completely awful and useless!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
23,934
Location
Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
It certainly will (or should) have penalties for late delivery. Clearly either they weren't enough to get CAF to work to time, or CAF are not a competent manufacturer of trains, in which case Arriva shouldn't have chosen them, however cheaply they were offering the trains - remember CAF were an attractive option for Arriva essentially because no one else wanted their product.

There should also be penalties for failing to deliver on the franchise contract. But Arriva are still around.
I am not sure you have ever been involved in mutli national contracting! It is almost as if it is easier to ignore reality and keep pressing a line based on nothing but anger!

Also what are the issues? Do you know exactly? Hiw do you apportion blame?
 

Robertj21a

Established Member
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
6,177
It certainly will (or should) have penalties for late delivery. Clearly either they weren't enough to get CAF to work to time, or CAF are not a competent manufacturer of trains, in which case Arriva shouldn't have chosen them, however cheaply they were offering the trains - remember CAF were an attractive option for Arriva essentially because no one else wanted their product.

There should also be penalties for failing to deliver on the franchise contract. But Arriva are still around.
Can I just ask if you actually have any experience in these matters, as your comments to date suggest otherwise.
 

158756

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,100
Can I just ask if you actually have any experience in these matters, as your comments to date suggest otherwise.
Experience in multinational business or the legal profession should not be a requirement to have an opinion on passengers and taxpayers being swindled for an unacceptable standard of service. Or do you actually think Northern, or any part of our system, is a model for the rest of the world to follow?
 

RT4038

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
846
Experience in multinational business or the legal profession should not be a requirement to have an opinion on passengers and taxpayers being swindled for an unacceptable standard of service. Or do you actually think Northern, or any part of our system, is a model for the rest of the world to follow?
If Arriva were going to take on that kind of black and white risk on their franchise, the cost to DfT would have been much higher. And if that risk had paid off (i.e. no problems) and they had made a handsome profit, lots of people on this forum would have been screaming about Arriva getting money for nothing. You can't have it both ways.
If CAF have to build in costs to cover their risk in every eventuality, the cost of the product will skyrocket. This would then be reflected in the lease costs and ultimately paid for by the taxpayer. I don't think taxpayers want to pay for the kind of delivery guarantees that are being suggested here.

It is no good bankrupting the franchisees unless they have done something really negligent, otherwise the number in the market will contract and prices surely rise.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
21,849
Location
Redcar
Why is Northern getting all the guff?. From my point of view it seems to be TPX that are more unreliable.
Reading the opening article the reason the OLR is starting to sniff around is because the franchise is in danger of becoming financially unviable. It isn't directly due to poor performance, so presumably, despite apparent poor performance, TPE remain viable financially for the time being.
 

Djgr

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
599
Reading the opening article the reason the OLR is starting to sniff around is because the franchise is in danger of becoming financially unviable. It isn't directly due to poor performance, so presumably, despite apparent poor performance, TPE remain viable financially for the time being.
But of course poor performance can lead to financial unviability as customers stay away due to the (Northern) advertised service not being provided on Sundays, Saturdays or indeed on Monday to Fridays.
 

bobbyrail

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2018
Messages
100
Why is Northern getting all the guff?. From my point of view it seems to be TPX that are more unreliable.
Because this is the Northern bashing thread!

Can't get to work on time because ..................of Northern
Can't get out of bed earlier because .................of Northern
Costs me more on the very convenient train rather than the bus because .................of Northern
Can't get a train exactly where i want to go on a Sunday because .................of Northern
A train has been cancelled due to a line side fire because .................of Northern
Someone has trespassed on the railway cancelling or delaying my train because .................of Northern
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
21,849
Location
Redcar
But of course poor performance can lead to financial unviability as customers stay away due to the (Northern) advertised service not being provided on Sundays, Saturdays or indeed on Monday to Fridays.
Yes of course I'm not disputing that but it seems likely that the poor performance could continue almost indefinitely as long as the sums still added up.
 

Robertj21a

Established Member
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
6,177
Experience in multinational business or the legal profession should not be a requirement to have an opinion on passengers and taxpayers being swindled for an unacceptable standard of service. Or do you actually think Northern, or any part of our system, is a model for the rest of the world to follow?
I didn't refer to multinational business or the legal profession so I'm puzzled by your response. I was enquiring about your expertise when it came to contracts in particular and, probably, procurement in general.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
21,849
Location
Redcar
Personally speaking the time to sit up and take notice of the OLR actually possibly taking over the franchise will be when DFT OLR3 gets a name change on Companies House.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
2,663
Location
Greater Manchester
In its franchise agreement, Arriva contracted with the DfT to introduce its new trains by specific dates, and introduce new services and capacity uplifts dependent on those trains.

In making those commitments, Arriva should have assessed the capabilities of its chosen supplier, and made due allowance for the risk of delivery delays and/or development issues. Arriva should also have planned for staff recruitment and training to support the new trains and services, including changes to traincrew terms and conditions as required.

Contractual arrangements between Arriva and CAF are no concern of the DfT. Arriva is solely responsible for delivering its franchise commitments and the taxpayer cannot be expected to pick up the tab for late entry into service of the new trains, or for service cancellations due to lack of traincrew.
 

Djgr

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
599
Because this is the Northern bashing thread!

Can't get to work on time because ..................of Northern
Can't get out of bed earlier because .................of Northern
Costs me more on the very convenient train rather than the bus because .................of Northern
Can't get a train exactly where i want to go on a Sunday because .................of Northern
A train has been cancelled due to a line side fire because .................of Northern
Someone has trespassed on the railway cancelling or delaying my train because .................of Northern

Point is that Northern has failed the attitude test.

In other words in the way that they have interacted with all the relevant stakeholders (certainly in the past year) they have managed to lose friends and make enemies. Nobody wants to hear why it's anyone's fault but Northern anymore.
 

Glenn1969

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
988
Some of the blame lies with DfT for not authorising Castlefield which meant Northern had to defer some of the services that were in the TSR

Some of the blame for the 2018 Timetable lies with NR for the bungled and delayed NW electrification

Some of the blame does lie with Arriva. But not all of it

For me the acid test is Dec 2019 when the rest of the TSR Commitments and Northern Connect are due to be implemented. I'm giving them another year before making judgement
 

RT4038

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
846
In its franchise agreement, Arriva contracted with the DfT to introduce its new trains by specific dates, and introduce new services and capacity uplifts dependent on those trains.

In making those commitments, Arriva should have assessed the capabilities of its chosen supplier, and made due allowance for the risk of delivery delays and/or development issues. Arriva should also have planned for staff recruitment and training to support the new trains and services, including changes to traincrew terms and conditions as required.

Contractual arrangements between Arriva and CAF are no concern of the DfT. Arriva is solely responsible for delivering its franchise commitments and the taxpayer cannot be expected to pick up the tab for late entry into service of the new trains, or for service cancellations due to lack of traincrew.
But I don't think it quite works like that. The Franchisee is micro-managed by the DfT far greater than this (and quite rightly, because they do not wish to pick up the labour cost tab for a profligate operator, even if they do go bust), and are only willing to pay (in the franchise price) so much for rolling stock lease costs, which won't include the sort of price the supplier will demand for cast iron delivery guarantees that you envisage.

So you get a 'Northern' that the farepayers and taxpayers (as represented by the DfT) wish to pay for.

We all know what the problem is, and need to face the reality that only a political solution (more taxpayers money) is going to solve it.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
2,663
Location
Greater Manchester
But I don't think it quite works like that. The Franchisee is micro-managed by the DfT far greater than this (and quite rightly, because they do not wish to pick up the labour cost tab for a profligate operator, even if they do go bust), and are only willing to pay (in the franchise price) so much for rolling stock lease costs, which won't include the sort of price the supplier will demand for cast iron delivery guarantees that you envisage.

So you get a 'Northern' that the farepayers and taxpayers (as represented by the DfT) wish to pay for.

We all know what the problem is, and need to face the reality that only a political solution (more taxpayers money) is going to solve it.
The DfT has not micro-managed the new train procurement. The franchise ITT merely specified a minimum number of new "self-powered" carriages. It was Arriva, in its winning bid, that selected CAF as the supplier, chose to procure more new DMUs than specified, and chose to procure new EMUs as well. It was Arriva, in its bid, that promised to reduce the franchise subsidy year on year.

Supplier management is not about "cast iron delivery guarantees". It is about working with the rolling stock supplier to make sure all the requirements are properly understood (particular when the supplier is new to the British network) and to ensure that the development and production programme is robust and realistic. Contingency should have been included in the dates promised to the DfT, to allow for unforeseen delays. Then supplier performance should have been closely monitored, and corrective actions jointly developed to recover the programme when issues arose. This all requires a proactive approach by the TOC senior management team.

If Arriva now finds that the Northern franchise is financially unsustainable on the agreed terms, whether because it over-promised in its bid or because of subsequent managerial incompetence, it has the option of "handing back the keys" and forfeiting its performance bond, like VTEC. A bailout, in the form of increased subsidy payments, would encourage unrealistic bids in future franchise competitions.
 

mrmatt

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2012
Messages
111
Location
Flitwick
Contingency should have been included in the dates promised to the DfT, to allow for unforeseen delays. Then supplier performance should have been closely monitored, and corrective actions jointly developed to recover the programme when issues arose. This all requires a proactive approach by the TOC senior management team.
How do you know this is not the case but that for all the planning and contingency in the world it has still slipped? Unless you are closely connected to these things exactly how competent the project delivery has been is impossible to say either way.

Also to those who assume the contract does not have sufficient incentives for on-time delivery and that northern will simply get away with it how do you know those penalties are not going to be invoked on both sides (with effectively the penalty flowing straight through arriva to the DfT)?

I'm not saying either of these is likely or unlikely simply that there are a lot of assumptions being used around their competence simply based on the fact their trains run late on a very congested network...
 

Djgr

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
599
there are a lot of assumptions being used around their competence simply based on the fact their trains run late on a very congested network.

mrmatt, it is so, so much more than that!
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,376
Location
North West England
there are a lot of assumptions being used around their competence simply based on the fact their trains run late on a very congested network.
There are lots of Northern problems that aren't on the most congested bits. There are also cancellations, late running, short forming, etc on the non congested areas too!
 

gazzaa2

Member
Joined
2 May 2018
Messages
333
Northern are only a symptom of a problem.

They're operating on 19th century infrastructure with 20th century rolling stock in huge expanding 21st century metropolises like Manchester who've outgrown the outdated network.

Last year was absolute chaos with the strikes, the timetable mess up and insufficient staffing levels to carry out the service. 2 out of 3 have been mostly resolved this year. They still can't run a proper Sunday service.

Is their service shoddy? Yeah. It's overcrowded, over-congested and short formed in a lot of places. It's only trains that run in and out of London that run a good service in this country (well some of them).
 

Glenn1969

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
988
The Sunday service staffing issue isn't actually entirely Northern's fault. It's the DfT's fault for not realising the different terms would be an issue when the franchise was remapped from First North Western and RRNE to the current two franchises. The taking on of sufficient extra staff should have been written into Northern's franchise agreement when the franchise started. Right now I'm not sure what the answer is
 

Japan0913

Member
Joined
29 Aug 2017
Messages
232
Pressure increases on Northern franchise.
19th June 2019 Railnews
https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/201...se.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
THERE are new calls for Arriva’s Northern franchise to be terminated.

More politicians in north east England are now echoing previous messages from the Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and North of Tyne, and also the TSSA union, who have all said they want transport secretary Chris Grayling to end the contract.

The North East’s Joint Transport Committee has been discussing the performance of Northern since 2017, when it was awarded to Arriva.
The meeting also heard that plans to withdraw Pacers were running late, and that other franchise commitments are also not being met.

Cllr Carl Marshall, cabinet member for economic regeneration at Durham County Council represents the region’s rail interests at Transport for the North, and he said passengers in the region ‘deserved better’.

He continued: ‘The Northern franchise is failing passengers in North East England. New trains were promised, along with better stations, faster services, and an operator that would listen to the needs of our communities, but we have seen none of that.

‘We’re now being told commuters will have to suffer the rattling forty-year old buses-on-rails known as ‘Pacers’ for some time to come, leaving passengers suffering cramped conditions, poor reliability and frequent delays.

‘When new carriages are finally delivered they will be used in the North West and Yorkshire. Passengers in the North East will once again rely on second-hand trains, while investment in our stations is sadly lacking.

‘Even Northern Rail’s plans to expand show it is not listening – we have asked many times for new services through the under-served major centres of Sunderland and Hartlepool, but instead Northern Rail wants to force them along the East Coast Mainline, needlessly adding to congestion on this vital artery.

‘The North East’s local rail network has been an investment backwater for decades. The Northern franchise is just the latest to fail to deliver what it promised.

‘It is time to look at a different model for rail services in the North East, through public ownership focused on delivering for our communities to help build our economy.

‘We will be asking Transport for the North to help us make this case through the Williams Rail Review. Our rail travellers and our local economy deserve a lot better.’

Railnews has asked for a comment from Northern.
Is the local area at its limit?

It's like Japanese National Railways 40 years ago.
Intense labor-management conflicts.
Privatization of the Japanese National Railways.
to drastically cut the red lines like Beeching.

through their painful experiences they have achieved remarkable growth
To the JR-East Japan Railway Company
Why don't you transfer the franchise?
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,127
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Funny how there are multiple threads castigating Northern and TPE for poor performance, but when a report is published into the issues in the north, nobody pays any attention to it.
This is a joint report by DfT and TfN (The "Blake Jones Review") about the May 2018 timetable meltdown.
I've only skim-read it, but I'm still surprised at the lack of oversight by TfN and Rail North before them.
Meanwhile, Burnham and Rotheram march around and lambast the TOCs, not bothering to find out what their appointed body has or hasn't done to manage the situation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/blake-jones-review-rail-north-partnership-review

The joint review of the Rail North partnership, known as the Blake-Jones review, was led by Councillor Judith Blake, Leader of Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority Transport Lead, and Rail Minister Andrew Jones

Our recommendations focus on two overall areas: enhancing what passengers can expect from the industry, especially when it comes to timetable changes – a new ‘Passenger Promise’; and improving the lines of accountability behind the scenes to clarify and make more transparent who is responsible for key decisions.

In addition, our Review raises longer term questions about more fundamental reform to be considered in the Williams Review that is underway and which will be a key report for determining the shape and future of rail services in the UK. These questions include how devolution within a much more integrated rail industry can provide a train service which will effectively support the North’s growing economy.
The report seems to demonstrate the poor communications both within the rail industry and with the people who are supposed to have oversight of the northern franchises.
I'd also observe that the report authors are based east of the Pennines, when the worst aspects of the failures last year were felt on the west side.
 

Top