Should franchises keep the same branding?

[RealTrains07]

Ive found today that the franchises contracts for EMR and LNER specify that future operators will use the same branding

Is is good the DfT demand franchises have transferrable brands or will that give too much control to the DfT in what is meant to be a privatised railway?

I think its pretty ludicrous.
Shouldn’t all franchises be allowed to have different branding at least if they have the keep the same name as their predecessor?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually quite like the "refresh" that you get when a new TOC takes over.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Ive found today that the franchises contracts for EMR and LNER specify that future operators will use the same branding

Is is good the DfT demand franchises have transferrable brands or will that give too much control to the DfT in what is meant to be a privatised railway?

I think its pretty ludicrous.
Shouldn’t all franchises be allowed to have different branding at least if they have the keep the same name as their predecessor?

The West Coast doesn’t have a permanent brand name but GWR, LNER, SWR, EMR, WMR and LNR have permanent names. Most of the franchises were awarded during the May Ministry. I believe Shapps has said that operators should be allowed to choose their brand names.

 

[158756]

If it isn't split up, Northern definitely needs a new name. The brand was toxic even before Arriva took over, and far from a change confusing passengers, most will be glad never to see another Northern train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it isn't split up, Northern definitely needs a new name. The brand was toxic even before Arriva took over, and far from a change confusing passengers, most will be glad never to see another Northern train.

That can be changed. Southern's brand was toxic for a while, but they seem to have pulled back from that now. As an example I'd imagine that, even though everyone seems to hate WMR and LNR at the moment, once the timetable is fixed in May/December it will get forgotten about over time.

 

[Meerkat]

I think they should keep all the names and liveries I like and change all the ones I don’t

 

[Clip]

Yes they should have uniform names for each TOC but i would allow them to be as flamboyant as they wish with liverys

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe scope to change the name and brand but the livery shouldn't reflect the owning company's house colours, otherwise everything needs to be re-liveried at every franchise change. If this is done quickly for maximum impact, it's an extra cost to the taxpayer in greater subsidy or less premium, all just to feed the ego of the owning company. If left until the trains are due a repaint, much of the fleet probably won't have been done before the end of the franchise.

 

[elliotjelliot]

Ive found today that the franchises contracts for EMR and LNER specify that future operators will use the same branding

Is is good the DfT demand franchises have transferrable brands or will that give too much control to the DfT in what is meant to be a privatised railway?

I think its pretty ludicrous.
Shouldn’t all franchises be allowed to have different branding at least if they have the keep the same name as their predecessor?

I think its nice to have a change of brand when a franchise changes but in some cases franchises take too long to rebrand, which undermines the point of a brand change. For example, London North Western Railway have still got a largely LM branded fleet over 2 years into the new franchise! However, I do think if a new company takes over they should be allowed to differentiate themselves from previous franchise holders.

 

[devonexpress]

The West Coast doesn’t have a permanent brand name but GWR, LNER, SWR, EMR, WMR and LNR have permanent names. Most of the franchises were awarded during the May Ministry. I believe Shapps has said that operators should be allowed to choose their brand names.

Without making this political but Shapps is all talk just like his boss and most of the current government. I personally think every toc should have a brand name and stick to it, it doesn't mean the livery can't change or be altered, but it offers more benefits, such as:

1)A smoother transition for staff, passengers etc. As the name is the same and all trains are in the same livery.
2) It reduces the cost of a new toc wasting money repainting the entire fleet, for example FGW where notorious for repainting it's fleet every 3 or 4 years in the early 2000s.

3) it also means in the case of a failed franchise the government can keep continuity, website, branding, livery, uniforms

 

[geoffk]

The Scotrail solution is the preferred option for me. A standard livery and a panel stating "Scotrail is operated by..." Passengers don't even need to know who the operator is. When you use London buses, you're probably not aware, unless you're an enthusiast, whether the bus is operated by Tower Transit, Metroline, Abellio or whatever.

 

[VT 390]

I think that keeping the same brand's is a good idea because it saves the cost of changing all the trains operated by that company each time it changes and as it takes so long to change the livery, especially on large franchises like Northern or South Western Railway by the time it has been done it is sometimes not long until the next franchise. The best solution, I think, is what ScotRail has as the Livery is stays the same, it's just the operating company that needs changing if they even have in included in the Livery.
Having the operators name in a franchises name does not even always tell people (who actually want to know who operates the company) who operates the company, for example Virgin Trains was just Virgin Trains but Stagecoach were part of the operation.

 

[HSTEd]

Ive found today that the franchises contracts for EMR and LNER specify that future operators will use the same branding

Is is good the DfT demand franchises have transferrable brands or will that give too much control to the DfT in what is meant to be a privatised railway?

I think its pretty ludicrous.
Shouldn’t all franchises be allowed to have different branding at least if they have the keep the same name as their predecessor?

As Virgin demonstrated, if you give the private company any separate identity in the minds of the public they will use it in a desperate attempt to subvert the franchising process and feather their own nest.
It cannot be permitted.

Also the DfT is ultimately the one paying for all this, so they get to set the rules.

 

[Meerkat]

Also the DfT is ultimately the one paying for all this, so they get to set the rules.

Not in the Virgin example as the brand added value, but generally yes.
The devolved brands should be decided by the sponsors.
But there should be more freedom on the intercity brands, excluding corporate colours (Virgin red not really being a problem, but various Stagecoach and First brands have been in the past) with the franchise responsible for removing all corporate branding at the end.
If the bidder believes there is value in a new brand or livery they should be allowed to give it a go - that is part of the point of getting commercial companies involved.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes I like it, seems like a more rational, uniform railway than changing it every decade for another corporate brand name.

 

[Mogz]

Yes! And Avanti West Coast should have been LMS!

It would save repainting every time a franchisee changes.

Like the London buses the colour and brand would remain the same while the operator would be marked in smaller writing.

 

[packermac]

Well like most things on the railway it is a bodged up mess.
True franchising would have the franchise holder specifying how things should look. Which is why every McDonald's restaurant or Snap on Tools van look the same.
So in this instance the DfT as the governments representative should really specify one brand or a group of brands.
But we all know it is not true franchising, just spin!

 

[markymark2000]

I think that sometimes, keeping one name and livery then just changing the operator logo is best but I feel like some of the longer distance brands really thrive off their more company name.

Northern, Southern, South Eastern, C2C for example are all good to keep their names and liveries as they are a lot more commuter focussed and the livery/brand means very little.

Cross Country, West Coast, East Coast franchises however, they seem to thrive off their brand names and they need to compete a lot more to get the passengers (with competition from coaches and planes).

That is where I think the vital difference is here, there should not be a blanket ban on franchises changing the liveries and branding etc but instead it should be looked at on a tender by tender basis to see whether it is more local commuter or business/leisure focussed and also look at potential competition from other modes of transport.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that sometimes, keeping one name and livery then just changing the operator logo is best but I feel like some of the longer distance brands really thrive off their more company name.

Northern, Southern, South Eastern, C2C for example are all good to keep their names and liveries as they are a lot more commuter focussed and the livery/brand means very little.

Cross Country, West Coast, East Coast franchises however, they seem to thrive off their brand names and they need to compete a lot more to get the passengers (with competition from coaches and planes).

That is where I think the vital difference is here, there should not be a blanket ban on franchises changing the liveries and branding etc but instead it should be looked at on a tender by tender basis to see whether it is more local commuter or business/leisure focussed and also look at potential competition from other modes of transport.

There may be a legitimate need for a franchise to re-brand and/or re-name. Typically a business does this if it has a poor public image and wants to start again, but brands that are seen as successful tend to evolve gradually. I think we can see many current franchises that might benefit from such a clean-sheet approach. However if the quality of the product doesn't genuinely improve relative to the public perception of the previous offering then the re-brand may be counter-productive. This was probably the case with the original Virgin and Northern franchises when they painted the old stock in shiny new liveries with no improvements to the interiors or indeed to the services they operated.

The problem is where the existing branding includes the corporate colours and/or the name of the previous owning group, so it is essential to change it early in the new franchise even if the brand has a good public image. All the big owning groups except Go-Ahead have done this at one time or another, but with the demise of the Virgin and Stagecoach franchises it is now extinct.

 

[Aictos]

The Scotrail solution is the preferred option for me. A standard livery and a panel stating "Scotrail is operated by..." Passengers don't even need to know who the operator is. When you use London buses, you're probably not aware, unless you're an enthusiast, whether the bus is operated by Tower Transit, Metroline, Abellio or whatever.

Indeed, this is the format that should be applied to all TOCs and even Trams as changing the livery every time a new company comes in is wasteful.

Just follow the Scottish model as that is best for business.

 

[Meerkat]

Just follow the Scottish model as that is best for business

How do you know that?

 

[Aictos]

How do you know that?

1. Saves rebranding costs which isn’t cheap especially when you take into account: stationary, station and train branding, uniforms etc

2. It presents a steady and reliable brand that even non users will be aware of eg Virgin Trains lost the XC franchise in 2007 yet people still refer to XC as Virgin Trains.

3. When ownership changes, it’s a fairly straight forward exercise to show this eg Scotrail operated by First was changed to Scotrail operated by Abellio.

4. Even London Buses have a standardised livery so the idea works not just for railways but other modes of transportation.

5. It means that when the operating company changes, you don’t have the issue of debranding everything which adds costs see Point 1.

All in all, the Scottish Model makes the most sense instead of having a rainbow of liveries and wasting money on them.

 

[Meerkat]

1. Saves rebranding costs which isn’t cheap especially when you take into account: stationary, station and train branding, uniforms etc

2. It presents a steady and reliable brand that even non users will be aware of eg Virgin Trains lost the XC franchise in 2007 yet people still refer to XC as Virgin Trains.

3. When ownership changes, it’s a fairly straight forward exercise to show this eg Scotrail operated by First was changed to Scotrail operated by Abellio.

4. Even London Buses have a standardised livery so the idea works not just for railways but other modes of transportation.

5. It means that when the operating company changes, you don’t have the issue of debranding everything which adds costs see Point 1.

All in all, the Scottish Model makes the most sense instead of having a rainbow of liveries and wasting money on them.

1. Uniforms have to be replaced and things repainted anyway
2. Steady and reliable brand isn’t dynamic marketing - odd that you use Virgin, which shows how a dynamic brand can make a difference.
3. Branding doesn’t have to change at franchise change if corporate colours/names aren’t used.
4. London Buses is effectively one “franchise” provided by lots of companies. It is geographically limited and is a great London brand that has become permanent. You are doing the railway equivalent of “United were successful because they stuck by their manager” rather than “United stuck by their manager because he was successful”
5. See response 1 and 3

 

[edwin_m]

1. Uniforms have to be replaced and things repainted anyway

If a decent job is made of painting rolling stock it will last for much longer than a franchise term. So changing the liveries at the end of every franchise will mean some, at least, of the fleet being re-painted before it's due, or receiving vinyls instead. Either costs money.

2. Steady and reliable brand isn’t dynamic marketing - odd that you use Virgin, which shows how a dynamic brand can make a difference.
3. Branding doesn’t have to change at franchise change if corporate colours/names aren’t used.

The brand and livery of Virgin Trains was unchanged for nearly 20 years as they happened to keep the franchise for that period. But it was a corporate colour livery so if they had lost the franchise in the meantime then the value of the brand would have been lost. ​

4. London Buses is effectively one “franchise” provided by lots of companies. It is geographically limited and is a great London brand that has become permanent. You are doing the railway equivalent of “United were successful because they stuck by their manager” rather than “United stuck by their manager because he was successful”

You seem to be agreeing here that it's best to make the brand independent of the franchise, yet in other points you seem to be arguing the opposite.

 

[Aictos]

If a decent job is made of painting rolling stock it will last for much longer than a franchise term. So changing the liveries at the end of every franchise will mean some, at least, of the fleet being re-painted before it's due, or receiving vinyls instead. Either costs money.

The brand and livery of Virgin Trains was unchanged for nearly 20 years as they happened to keep the franchise for that period. But it was a corporate colour livery so if they had lost the franchise in the meantime then the value of the brand would have been lost. ​

You seem to be agreeing here that it's best to make the brand independent of the franchise, yet in other points you seem to be arguing the opposite.

Agreed, look at the Network South East livery on the Class 365 fleet now that lasted NSE, Prism Rail and WAGN before being replaced under FCC.

Now if Prism and WAGN decided to fully rebrand the Class 365s as a example, just think of how much that cost for the entire fleet to be done, all 40 Class 365s.

That money could have been to invest elsewhere in the franchise be it for stations, staff or even upgrade the fleet to be more passenger friendly.

The idea that franchises should rebrand upon taking over is wrong and is a wasteful use of resources.

 

[Meerkat]

The liveries are mainly vinyls now aren’t they?
So don’t last as long or cost so much.
Even the sainted BR rebranded NSE (via Jaffa) and NSE was changed at least once in 8 years.....

 

[Meerkat]

If a decent job is made of painting rolling stock it will last for much longer than a franchise term. So changing the liveries at the end of every franchise will mean some, at least, of the fleet being re-painted before it's due, or receiving vinyls instead. Either costs money.

The brand and livery of Virgin Trains was unchanged for nearly 20 years as they happened to keep the franchise for that period. But it was a corporate colour livery so if they had lost the franchise in the meantime then the value of the brand would have been lost. ​

You seem to be agreeing here that it's best to make the brand independent of the franchise, yet in other points you seem to be arguing the opposite.

Virgin branding added value that keeping it as Intercity wouldn’t have had.
The point about London was they had a fantastically famous brand, so don’t change it. That’s a bit different from freezing the awful WMT one forever!
As long as the livery isn’t corporate then it doesn’t have to all be changed at franchise date, even if the brand changes.

 

[Aictos]

The liveries are mainly vinyls now aren’t they?
So don’t last as long or cost so much.
Even the sainted BR rebranded NSE (via Jaffa) and NSE was changed at least once in 8 years.....

Still wasteful and it takes a unit out of passenger service just so you can put a brand new and snazzy livery on it least with a standard livery that is avoided.

Besides if Transport Scotland thought it was a terrible idea in the first place then surely they wouldn’t have done it at all!

 

[RealTrains07]

The cost of the livery whether its paint or vinyl will vary per franchise as they all have different design elements with some being more simple and cheaper as a result than others

 

[Meerkat]

Still wasteful and it takes a unit out of passenger service just so you can put a brand new and snazzy livery on it least with a standard livery that is avoided.

Besides if Transport Scotland thought it was a terrible idea in the first place then surely they wouldn’t have done it at all!

The Scots have changed the brand more than once haven’t they?