Northern franchise to end 1 March 2020 with Operator of Last Resort to take over

[Llama]

Perhaps but I'd argue that we don't know if they prepared for change properly or not as the change went so wrong that I don't think anyone would have predicated back in 2016 (or at least done so and be taken seriously) that it would have gone as badly as it did! If you told someone in April 2016 when the franchise was awarded that the May 2018 timetable change would be a catastrophic failure, that the Bolton corridor electrification would be years behind schedule, that the PRM works and new trains would be months late, that there would be over a year of industrial action from the RMT, that there would be massive training backlogs for drivers in the North West, etc I don't think they'd believe you. Northern probably could have withstood one of them maybe even two of them but to have that litany of things go wrong (many of which weren't even fully within their control)? I'm not sure anyone could budget the necessary resources for that.

There were already massive training backlogs prior to 2016 that continued when the franchise changed hands. The DfT may specify traincrew resource levels being at a certain threshold at franchise handover time but they don't micro-manage enough to ensure that those numbers of traincrew are fully, or even reasonably, productive.

 

[Djgr]

Is it a Northern decision? Would it not be Arriva (or possible even DB) to decide how to resource Northern management? Does the DfT need to sign off on such a change (they do after all have a large role to play in train crew establishment levels for instance)?

I don't know but the point I'm making was that a corporate decision (Northern, Arriva, db- Does it really matter?) was made to risk reputation rather than make a financial call on the shareholders. And other options were available.

I fear that you are wasting your breath. There's a hard core of Northern/Arriva haters who will never accept anything that doesn't align with their agenda.

And there's a hardcore who believe that Northern can do/have done no wrong.

It's a perfect reasonable point to challenge whether or not they had sufficient management in place or whether they chose to save the cash and risk their reputation. And as a paying customer I am perfectly entitled to make it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And there's a hardcore who believe that Northern can do/have done no wrong.

It's a perfect reasonable point to challenge whether or not they had sufficient management in place or whether they chose to save the cash and risk their reputation. And as a paying customer I am perfectly entitled to make it.

And fundamentally they could have elected not to bid for the franchise if the terms were not acceptable, or to submit a noncompliant bid. If everyone did...

 

[Mathew S]

And there's a hardcore who believe that Northern can do/have done no wrong.

It's a perfect reasonable point to challenge whether or not they had sufficient management in place or whether they chose to save the cash and risk their reputation. And as a paying customer I am perfectly entitled to make it.

I don't think anyone would suggest that Northern/Arriva "have done no wrong." But, when you bid for a contract you rely on the information provided in the ITT. In this case, the ITT turned out to be so wrong as to be essentially fictional. Whatever mistakes Arriva/Northern have made in running the franchise, the rotten core remains the fact that the bids were put together based on false information and broken promises.

 

[Clip]

The problem is, it runs the risk of adding to the misconception too often in government that 'the North' means Manchester (And yes, I'm well aware of how the capacity issues on a couple of lines within Manchester have wider effect, but I do still think there's a risk that we'll end up with a timetable built around Manchester's needs.)

Quite possibly but it kind of already does - but i was merely responding to someone who thought it was all westminsters idea

 

[Mogster]

I don't think anyone would suggest that Northern/Arriva "have done no wrong." But, when you bid for a contract you rely on the information provided in the ITT. In this case, the ITT turned out to be so wrong as to be essentially fictional. Whatever mistakes Arriva/Northern have made in running the franchise, the rotten core remains the fact that the bids were put together based on false information and broken promises.

Yes. I feel that by focusing on Northern the DfT is let off the hook which is very annoying.

 

[Djgr]

I don't think anyone would suggest that Northern/Arriva "have done no wrong." But, when you bid for a contract you rely on the information provided in the ITT. In this case, the ITT turned out to be so wrong as to be essentially fictional. Whatever mistakes Arriva/Northern have made in running the franchise, the rotten core remains the fact that the bids were put together based on false information and broken promises.

but perhaps Northern might have elicited more public and political friends if they done a half decent job on the things that they COULD control, such as their new ticket machines, penalty fares scheme and cleanliness regime. And if they hadn't operated almost radio silence for 4 years on matters such as-what on earth is happening to the Northern Connect brand? Putting your head down and not engaging is not the way to go.

 

[js1000]

but perhaps Northern might have elicited more public and political friends if they done a half decent job on the things that they COULD control, such as their new ticket machines, penalty fares scheme and cleanliness regime. And if they hadn't operated almost radio silence for 4 years on matters such as-what on earth is happening to the Northern Connect brand? Putting your head down and not engaging is not the way to go.

Both Northern and the DfT are equally culpable for the shambles.

Djgr: I agree completely. The stuff that Northern were in control of they were utterly hopeless at doing it properly. Lack of discretion in applying Penalty Fares, confusing ticket machine interface, lack of cleaniness on trains, even the scruffy/shoddy uniforms etc. It's a real mess. Attention to detail is clearly not their forte.

The DfT promised upgrades as part of the Franchise prospectus in 2014 to support growth on the franchise but they reneged on it. They blindly continued to implement the May 2018 timetable despite it being clearly not possible to operate a reliable service.

Good riddance to them both. I only hope the Operator of Last Resort has ultimate power to do as they see fit to restore reliability and provide a dependable rail service to passengers in the North. Alas, I fear there are too many cooks and they won't be given carte blanche to get this franchise back on track.

 

[Greybeard33]

Can the apologists for Arriva explain exactly how external factors are to blame for the financial collapse of the franchise?

Of various issues cited in this thread:

• Infrastructure delays - the franchise agreement provided for Arriva to be able to claim back losses incurred due to Network Rail failing to deliver infrastructure enhancements by the promised dates. For example, it is a reasonable assumption that DfT has part funded the conversion of 319s to 769s and the procurement of additional 195s for the Windermere branch.
• RMT strikes - Arriva signed up to the introduction of DCO and should have allowed for the risk of industrial action in their bid. Plus the franchise agreement provided for the DfT to reimburse Arriva for losses due to industrial action.
• Sunday working - if the Arriva bid team did their homework on traincrew Ts & Cs, they should have predicted the issues that would arise from a massive expansion of Sunday services on the west side, and prepared a mitigation plan that was priced into the bid.
• New CAF trains delays and teething troubles - Arriva selected CAF and specified the trains. There should have been a contingency plan for these foreseeable issues.
• Delays to PRM mods and refurbishment - again Arriva knew the PRM deadline and signed up to do this work. The bid team should have liaised with the ROSCOs and ensured they had a robust programme.
• Driver training issues - these were also predictable at the bid stage and there should have been a robust plan in place. Presumably the issues would have been even worse if the planned December 2017 timetable had been fully implemented on schedule and the new trains had been delivered on time. NR and CAF helped get Arriva off the hook!
• Castlefield corridor congestion - this is a red herring. The infrastructure in the corridor now is as promised in the franchise agreement and Arriva's timetable planners should have been capable of predicting the risk of congestion. Arguably the inability to operate the full TSR might now be helping Arriva's bottom line. The revenue from the services that have been deferred would likely not have covered their operating costs, plus crew shortages would be more acute if these extra services were operating.

 

[Andyh82]

but perhaps Northern might have elicited more public and political friends if they done a half decent job on the things that they COULD control, such as their new ticket machines, penalty fares scheme and cleanliness regime. And if they hadn't operated almost radio silence for 4 years on matters such as-what on earth is happening to the Northern Connect brand? Putting your head down and not engaging is not the way to go.

Why would you cloud the issue by mentioning stuff that nobody has even heard of? Apologising for not introducing something nobody was asking about?

It was quite clear there were big issues to deal with first, and once everything was in place, ALL new trains, ALL refurbishments, ALL pacers withdrawn, etc then that would be when they’d start talking about Northern Connect. It was obviously dependant on all that having happened.

Also as others have said, it was quite clear that the franchise got out of control. Pretty much everything went wrong - New trains delayed, PRM deadlines missed, Pacer withdrawal missed, timetabling, reliability, infrastructure, the RMT strike, the west side Sunday working, increased pressure to fix all that stuff now with very little means to do so, the list goes on, so it’s no wonder little things like the interface on the ticket machines were not fixed.

 

[Mathew S]

Can the apologists for Arriva explain exactly how external factors are to blame for the financial collapse of the franchise?

Of various issues cited in this thread:

• Infrastructure delays - the franchise agreement provided for Arriva to be able to claim back losses incurred due to Network Rail failing to deliver infrastructure enhancements by the promised dates. For example, it is a reasonable assumption that DfT has part funded the conversion of 319s to 769s and the procurement of additional 195s for the Windermere branch.
• RMT strikes - Arriva signed up to the introduction of DCO and should have allowed for the risk of industrial action in their bid. Plus the franchise agreement provided for the DfT to reimburse Arriva for losses due to industrial action.
• Sunday working - if the Arriva bid team did their homework on traincrew Ts & Cs, they should have predicted the issues that would arise from a massive expansion of Sunday services on the west side, and prepared a mitigation plan that was priced into the bid.
• New CAF trains delays and teething troubles - Arriva selected CAF and specified the trains. There should have been a contingency plan for these foreseeable issues.
• Delays to PRM mods and refurbishment - again Arriva knew the PRM deadline and signed up to do this work. The bid team should have liaised with the ROSCOs and ensured they had a robust programme.
• Driver training issues - these were also predictable at the bid stage and there should have been a robust plan in place. Presumably the issues would have been even worse if the planned December 2017 timetable had been fully implemented on schedule and the new trains had been delivered on time. NR and CAF helped get Arriva off the hook!
• Castlefield corridor congestion - this is a red herring. The infrastructure in the corridor now is as promised in the franchise agreement and Arriva's timetable planners should have been capable of predicting the risk of congestion. Arguably the inability to operate the full TSR might now be helping Arriva's bottom line. The revenue from the services that have been deferred would likely not have covered their operating costs, plus crew shortages would be more acute if these extra services were operating.

The problem I have with, well, all of that is your underlying assumption that Arriva should have been able to predict what would go wrong before it did. I simply don't have time to respond to each of your bullet points (at some point I'd like to sleep, lol) however, the point which I, at least, have been trying to make is that, yes, Arriva did badly, but so did the DfT and Network Rail in failing to meet the commitments they had made, or provide a realistic ITT (to make but two issues).

Ultimately, the blame for the franchise falling apart rests in many places. OLR, from what I can see, is unlikely to solve anything other than perhaps being able to inject some semblance of stability in the short term (by which I mean < 5 years).

In the long term (15 years plus), the solution self-evidently lies in investment, and in a willingness by all the individuals and organisations involved to accept and adapt to the change and modernisation that's needed to drag the railway into the 20th Century... and then hopefully the 21st.

 

[Djgr]

Why would you cloud the issue by mentioning stuff that nobody has even heard of? Apologising for not introducing something nobody was asking about?

It was quite clear there were big issues to deal with first, and once everything was in place, ALL new trains, ALL refurbishments, ALL pacers withdrawn, etc then that would be when they’d start talking about Northern Connect. It was obviously dependant on all that having happened.

Also as others have said, it was quite clear that the franchise got out of control. Pretty much everything went wrong - New trains delayed, PRM deadlines missed, Pacer withdrawal missed, timetabling, reliability, infrastructure, the RMT strike, the west side Sunday working, increased pressure to fix all that stuff now with very little means to do so, the list goes on, so it’s no wonder little things like the interface on the ticket machines were not fixed.

Except lots of people WERE asking, continually. And this lack of communication and, in my opinion, an unwillingness to financially resource additional appropriate "firefighting" management were serious blunders if, indeed, Northern wasn't wanting to walk away from the franchise asap.

 

[Mathew S]

Except lots of people WERE asking, continually. And this lack of communication and, in my opinion, an unwillingness to financially resource additional appropriate "firefighting" management were serious blunders if, indeed, Northern wasn't wanting to walk away from the franchise asap.

I'll agree with you on Northerns lack of openness (which, btw, is also the case with almost all other train companies). However, they are a commercial business and have no obligation to be more open - whether they should have being a question for another thread.

As for extra resourcing, well, from their point if view I guess the question is why should they. I'm sure Arriva's argument would be that the lion's share of the issues are the result of DfT/NR/RMT action, or lack of action, and why should they have to pay to pick up the pieces.

 

[Llama]

Can the apologists for Arriva explain exactly how external factors are to blame for the financial collapse of the franchise?

Of various issues cited in this thread:

• Infrastructure delays - the franchise agreement provided for Arriva to be able to claim back losses incurred due to Network Rail failing to deliver infrastructure enhancements by the promised dates. For example, it is a reasonable assumption that DfT has part funded the conversion of 319s to 769s and the procurement of additional 195s for the Windermere branch.
• RMT strikes - Arriva signed up to the introduction of DCO and should have allowed for the risk of industrial action in their bid. Plus the franchise agreement provided for the DfT to reimburse Arriva for losses due to industrial action.
• Sunday working - if the Arriva bid team did their homework on traincrew Ts & Cs, they should have predicted the issues that would arise from a massive expansion of Sunday services on the west side, and prepared a mitigation plan that was priced into the bid.
• New CAF trains delays and teething troubles - Arriva selected CAF and specified the trains. There should have been a contingency plan for these foreseeable issues.
• Delays to PRM mods and refurbishment - again Arriva knew the PRM deadline and signed up to do this work. The bid team should have liaised with the ROSCOs and ensured they had a robust programme.
• Driver training issues - these were also predictable at the bid stage and there should have been a robust plan in place. Presumably the issues would have been even worse if the planned December 2017 timetable had been fully implemented on schedule and the new trains had been delivered on time. NR and CAF helped get Arriva off the hook!
• Castlefield corridor congestion - this is a red herring. The infrastructure in the corridor now is as promised in the franchise agreement and Arriva's timetable planners should have been capable of predicting the risk of congestion. Arguably the inability to operate the full TSR might now be helping Arriva's bottom line. The revenue from the services that have been deferred would likely not have covered their operating costs, plus crew shortages would be more acute if these extra services were operating.

I'd say you are very close to the mark with those points.

 

[Djgr]

I'll agree with you on Northerns lack of openness (which, btw, is also the case with almost all other train companies). However, they are a commercial business and have no obligation to be more open - whether they should have being a question for another thread.

As for extra resourcing, well, from their point if view I guess the question is why should they. I'm sure Arriva's argument would be that the lion's share of the issues are the result of DfT/NR/RMT action, or lack of action, and why should they have to pay to pick up the pieces.

1-No obligation, but sensible business practice

2-To maintain some semblance of reputation

 

[Mathew S]

1-No obligation, but sensible business practice

2-To maintain some semblance of reputation

1. How is spending money on which you'll never see a return good business?
2. How many of the public do you think know that Arriva run Northern? I'd bet it's a tiny number. I don't think, repuationally speaking, it'll make any difference at all. To most people, in the North West at least, Arriva are a bus company.

 

[HH]

I think many are missing the key point that has been made. Some TOCs are not resourced for change. It's not that they don't have enough people, it's just that the people they do have don't know how to manage change. When a TOC changes hands, it's only a handful of people at the top who change, the vast majority - and that includes managers - are the same people who were there previously. But it's easy to coast along when nothing is changing; you get found out when you actually have to implement new things.

 

[Mathew S]

I think many are missing the key point that has been made. Some TOCs are not resourced for change. It's not that they don't have enough people, it's just that the people they do have don't know how to manage change. When a TOC changes hands, it's only a handful of people at the top who change, the vast majority - and that includes managers - are the same people who were there previously. But it's easy to coast along when nothing is changing; you get found out when you actually have to implement new things.

The rare valid point..

 

[Kingspanner]

Northern aren't even pretending to try now.
From my lofty position in the North East I've sneered at those on Northern's western area. We've seen off the Pacers and you haven't, and your Castlefield Corridor might as well be on the moon. We care not a jot for your Sunday cancellations because we're OK. But we're not. Or I'm not anyway.
For the second time this week Northern failed to get 3D01 away from Heaton on time. It is formed of three two car sets which subdivide at Darlington and Middlesbrough before 7 AM providing units and crews for Saltburn and Bishop Auckland services.
This morning I stood in freezing fog at Dinsdale for 45 minutes wanting the 0635 before getting on the 0719. The 0635 formed out of 3D01 was trailingalong behind nearly 60 late with concomitant effects on subsequent trips on the diagram.
Anyway, when the guard came down checking tickets I told him to go and stand on a freezing platform for 45 minutes then I'd show it to him.
That was wrong and I shouldn't have said that.
But we ended up agreeing that neither the passengers or the operational staff have been able to, or can now, influence Northern's management in any meaningful way. God only knows what state the service will be in by the handover.

(I do need to develop more confidence in RTT and Traksy so I can commit to not leaving the house when they show 3D01 in trouble)

 

[js1000]

Can the apologists for Arriva explain exactly how external factors are to blame for the financial collapse of the franchise?

• Castlefield corridor congestion - this is a red herring. The infrastructure in the corridor now is as promised in the franchise agreement and Arriva's timetable planners should have been capable of predicting the risk of congestion. Arguably the inability to operate the full TSR might now be helping Arriva's bottom line. The revenue from the services that have been deferred would likely not have covered their operating costs, plus crew shortages would be more acute if these extra services were operating.

Page 45 of the Northern bid prospectus refers to the Northern Hub. It states: "In appointing a new Northern franchisee, Rail Executive is seeking to secure these benefits in the most advantageous way possible."

This is quite open-ended no doubt to avoid threat of potential litigation on reneged infrastructure improvements. Yes Arriva over-promised but how are companies supposed to tender on incomplete/unclear information?

When it became clear the new platforms at Piccadilly would be shelved the DfT should have hit the panic button and informed Network Rail to curtail some of the May 2018 timetable changes and compensate Arriva. Instead they stuck their head in the sand and didn't act.

 

[Robertj21a]

Page 45 of the Northern bid prospectus refers to the Northern Hub. It states: "In appointing a new Northern franchisee, Rail Executive is seeking to secure these benefits in the most advantageous way possible."

This is quite open-ended no doubt to avoid threat of potential litigation on reneged infrastructure improvements. Yes Arriva over-promised but how are companies supposed to tender on incomplete/unclear information?

When it became clear the new platforms at Piccadilly would be shelved the DfT should have hit the panic button and informed Network Rail to curtail some of the May 2018 timetable changes and compensate Arriva. Instead they stuck their head in the sand and didn't act.

Some very sensible comments. Thank you.

 

[TUC]

This is the kind of situation that gives Northern and other TOCs a bad name. https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/disruption/227

The last Huddersfield-Wakefield train of the night cancelled and, apart from Delay Repay, not the slightest attempt to set out any alternative services for passengers.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think many are missing the key point that has been made. Some TOCs are not resourced for change. It's not that they don't have enough people, it's just that the people they do have don't know how to manage change. When a TOC changes hands, it's only a handful of people at the top who change, the vast majority - and that includes managers - are the same people who were there previously. But it's easy to coast along when nothing is changing; you get found out when you actually have to implement new things.

In general it might be expected that the incumbent franchisee would have more accurate knowledge of the capabilities of its people to manage change than would the rival bidders - which will not necessarily be to the incumbent's advantage in the competition, if it prices that knowledge into its bid!

But in the case of Northern, after all those years of "no growth" and little change, Arriva should surely have realised that change management would be a challenge. Right at the start of the franchise in April 2016, the new senior management team should have come in with a plan to shake up the company and make it more change oriented. This might have included, for example, organisational changes, bringing in management consultants, and appraisals/retraining/recruitment of middle managers.

This all needed to be in place well before the (originally planned) December 2017 timetable change and the arrival of the new trains.

 

[Killingworth]

In general it might be expected that the incumbent franchisee would have more accurate knowledge of the capabilities of its people to manage change than would the rival bidders - which will not necessarily be to the incumbent's advantage in the competition, if it prices that knowledge into its bid!

But in the case of Northern, after all those years of "no growth" and little change, Arriva should surely have realised that change management would be a challenge. Right at the start of the franchise in April 2016, the new senior management team should have come in with a plan to shake up the company and make it more change oriented. This might have included, for example, organisational changes, bringing in management consultants, and appraisals/retraining/recruitment of middle managers.

This all needed to be in place well before the (originally planned) December 2017 timetable change and the arrival of the new trains.

Part of the problem is the time span from putting together the bid to receiving confirmation of the winner, and then the quite short period to recruit new interim managers until long term appointees emerge.

There's an interegnum period of too many months between announcement of the successful applicant to having the team fully in situ and familiar with both their colleagues and their departments.

I recall a briefing from Alex Hynes full of bravado and positivity, illustrated with pictures of new trains and maps of Northern Connect.. Proud to be Northern was at the core and that was hawked around the North.

Yes, adequate and effective change management may have been lacking. Lurching from one crisis to another has been the perception. The failure of Carillion and quick resolution of the details of that issue may be one plus.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I recall a briefing from Alex Hynes full of bravado and positivity, illustrated with pictures of new trains and maps of Northern Connect.. Proud to be Northern was at the core and that was hawked around the North.

Is that emboldened part of your posting above the same wording carried by a "named" Class 195?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is that emboldened part of your posting above the same wording carried by a "named" Class 195?

It's carried on multiple 195s and 331s, so I don't think it's a "name" as such. The branding just happens to look a bit like a nameplate, which is another thing to add to the list of "amateur hour" decisions made by Arriva Northern.

 

[Andyh82]

It's carried on multiple 195s and 331s, so I don't think it's a "name" as such. The branding just happens to look a bit like a nameplate, which is another thing to add to the list of "amateur hour" decisions made by Arriva Northern.

They are names, and they were generally revealed at the various press launches of the new trains.

Not sure why you’d add that to a ‘list’

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They are names, and they were generally revealed at the various press launches of the new trains.

Not sure why you’d add that to a ‘list’

Because re-using the same "name" multiple times is pretty amateurish IMO.

Unless they were inspired by John Cleese's character in the "Fish Licence" sketch...

 

[ScottGallagher]

As the Northern logo seems to be in Arriva corporate font won't that at least have to change even though it will still be called Northern even though the Arriva reference will no doubt be peeled off/taped over?

 

[Llama]

I'm assuming we will all get new coats if not full new uniform rollout as they have 'by arriva' under the logo too.

We're well overdue more uniform anyway.