Splitting GWR franchise - not very sensible?

[Master29]

Or Thames Trains

It may just as well be Mongolian Trains for all I care. I here about all these consultations, plans, business models, sustainability quotes, seemingly infinite number of rail groups with loads of other meaningless QUANGO twaddle and actually wonder about the cronies guvnors and gangsters that seem to run the rail industry in this country. The latest East Coast and GWR fiasco`s spring to mind. All buck passing and name calling crap. Who cares quite frankly. People just want to see the railways run by people who care. Incidentally, I don`t mean the people who work the railways who have always done and continue to do fantastic work on an antiquated network. They are the people I salute.

 

[edwin_m]

Another factor is that the costs of bidding and the guarantees required if you win a franchise are huge, restricting the number of companies who can bid. The complexities for European bidders post Brexit will also likely be higher. Given that, there is a significant risk of getting no bidders or a single bidder for the larger franchises.

That cuts both ways. It costs more to bid for two franchises than it would to bid for one that covered the combined services of both, and bidders for one may choose not to bid, or even be disqualified from bidding, for the other. There is also the risk (to bidders) of overlapping franchises competing with each other. So looking at the bigger picture I'd suggest larger franchises are less likely to lead to insufficient market interest.

 

[takno]

That cuts both ways. It costs more to bid for two franchises than it would to bid for one that covered the combined services of both, and bidders for one may choose not to bid, or even be disqualified from bidding, for the other. There is also the risk (to bidders) of overlapping franchises competing with each other. So looking at the bigger picture I'd suggest larger franchises are less likely to lead to insufficient market interest.

It's more a case of finding a big chunk of money upfront as a punt, followed by finding a massive amount of money later to be held in escrow. There just aren't that many companies that are in a position to do it, and even from that group some have been put off by previous experience and the pretty unexciting returns they can make. Smaller franchises might well be a worse actual business proposition, but maybe 10 times as many companies are of a sufficient size to contemplate it, and less of those companies have previously been burned by the process.

It's the same as getting a getting an office relocation done. You should probably get it done as a single job lot. It will all get done, you have one person to contact about problems, and the price overall will probably be lower because they only need to use a couple of lorries. There might only be one company in the area able to do it though, so if you need some pretence of competition you have to let out smaller jobs to multiple firms. Everyone involved is worse off, and they know it, but at least there was a competition, and to some people that's what really matters.

 

[sjoh]

The clue to whose notion this was, identified by others here as well as me, perhaps lies in the arguments for splitting, which are countered very effectively in the document in the advantages and disadvantages section. It looks like the civil servants may be trying, this time, to counter the politicians' crazy ideas.

This is certainly what I would have done in a situation where asked to scope possibilities for an outlandish idea, yes.

Apologies for snapping - I do just get a little tired of the sort of anti civil service rhetoric I see around here, much as industry types get tired of the rubbish about train drivers/signallers/guards etc being incompetent/out to cause misery and such.

 

[AlterEgo]

I've just read through the consultation document and I was not very impressed with the idea floated to create two GW franchises, splitting them, but with big overlaps, not counting the ones with XC and W and Bs, already present. The proposer's own arguments for and against seemed to defeat the idea.

It was as though the civil servant was bored with the job of producing a consultation document and came up with the idea, to pass a wet afternoon in November. A waste of everyone's time, in my view (and our money).

It’s likely to be a statutory consultation. That is, to make this sort of change requires a public consultation process by law. This idea is likely to have come from a minister.

It’s not likely to be just civil servants deciding to waste everyone’s time (including their own). Sigh.

You can pick up that this is likely to be a statutory consultation by the fact the document doesn’t explicitly state a narrative or minded-to direction of travel.

 

[SwindonBert]

If Reading-Gatwick services were split off from GWR, would it be better off being with SWR, Southern or as a stand-alone franchise?

I would suggest SWR as it's out of Reading
It's the only split I would like to see of the GWR franchise

 

[Wirewiper]

I would suggest SWR as it's out of Reading
It's the only split I would like to see of the GWR franchise

I would support splitting off Reading-Gatwick Airport to SWR if it was part of a plan to electrify the route with third-rail. The units could be stabled mostly at Guildford with a couple in Reading Station overnight.

In that instance it would not make sense for GWR to run a small fleet of DC-equipped units for just one line (although I suppose dual-voltage units could be a possibility).

 

[hozza94]

In that instance it would not make sense for GWR to run a small fleet of DC-equipped units for just one line (although I suppose dual-voltage units could be a possibility).

But isn't the 387 already dual-voltage capable?

 

[Wirewiper]

But isn't the 387 already dual-voltage capable?

Capable, but the GWR ones are not DC-equipped. To do so comes at a cost, and would means GWR having to cope with the logistics of a small sub-fleet as it would not be cost-effective to convert all of them.

EDIT: appears I am wrong on this and the GWR 387s are in fact DC-equipped, apologies for the error.

 

[158747]

Capable, but the GWR ones are not DC-equipped. To do so comes at a cost, and would means GWR having to cope with the logistics of a small sub-fleet as it would not be cost-effective to convert all of them.

The GWR 387s are DC equipped, I have just seen a video on YouTube of one arriving at Brighton on a test run.

 

[HowardGWR]

It’s not likely to be just civil servants deciding to waste everyone’s time (including their own). Sigh.

See my reply to the honourable member some time ago.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Or Thames Trains

It may just as well be Mongolian Trains for all I care.

I asked a friend who has travelled on both the Trans-Siberian and on Thames Trains. She said she'd prefer the Trans-Siberian. I've never travelled on it but strongly suspect it is indeed more comfortable, better value and faster than the 17.18 Thames service from Paddington ever was.

 

[pdeaves]

Capable, but the GWR ones are not DC-equipped.

in addition to 158747's response, folk might like to see this https://www.flickr.com/photos/pdeaves/34698222133/ showing the shoe beam on a GWR 387.

 

[HH]

It was as though the civil servant was bored with the job of producing a consultation document and came up with the idea, to pass a wet afternoon in November. A waste of everyone's time, in my view (and our money).

If only. Said Civil Servant is more likely to think he's god's gift to the railways and has come up with a genius proposition. The reason for the arguments are possibly more sensible people managing to insert them in?

 

[swt_passenger]

I would support splitting off Reading-Gatwick Airport to SWR if it was part of a plan to electrify the route with third-rail. The units could be stabled mostly at Guildford with a couple in Reading Station overnight.

AIUI all Guildford stabling is fully used now, (this is why the ten car project provided a couple of extra sidings) but there might be even less available if the additional through platforms get added as NR recommend.

I don't disagree with SWR running the service, but ease of stabling at Guildford doesn't seem to be a factor...

 

[HowardGWR]

I'd be interested in the insuperable reason that Reading to Gatwick should be transferred to an SW franchise. I haven't read any here (yet).

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd be interested in the insuperable reason that Reading to Gatwick should be transferred to an SW franchise. I haven't read any here (yet).

I agree with this too. It's been a regular proposal (usually by the same poster) that's more to do with neatening up the franchise map than anything useful.

 

[joncombe]

Would be funny if Wessex Trains came back

Would it be so bad, though? As someone living in Devon at the time I well remember their predecessor, Wales and West. They did do some good, refurbishing the 153s (which needed it) and the 158s (which didn't really) and installing information systems at their stations (as a large number of their stations, probably the majority had no real-time information at all until then). But they continued to cut service frequencies on pretty much or the Devon/Cornwall branch lines and generally run the service down. The trains were usually very dirty (particularly the 150s, which were all un-refurbished) and felt run down, as did the stations. Reliability was in my experience poor. My over-riding memory was of a railway in decline.

Then along came Wessex trains. They did a good refurbishment of the 150s, maintained the stock much better, improved the stations, but most importantly not just reversed the cuts Wales and West implemented but increased service frequently still more (e.g. every 30 minutes on the St Ives line). They seemed to make much more effort, e.g. bringing in the loco-hauled sets on the Heart of Wessex Line on the busiest services and generally seemed to get out of the "managed decline" approach that came before and improved the service quality.

Then along came First Great Western. The 158s went from Devon and Cornwall. So to did the nicely refurbished 150s and in their place we got a mixture of other operators un-refurbished cast-off 150s and lots of Pacers (which had not operated in Devon or Cornwall for many years prior to that, all locals had been sprinters).

I appreciate that in financial terms separating out the local West country services into a small local franchise would mean it would need to be heavily subsidised, but history would suggest it would not necessarily lead to a worse service.

 

[NSEFAN]

I appreciate that in financial terms separating out the local West country services into a small local franchise would mean it would need to be heavily subsidised, but history would suggest it would not necessarily lead to a worse service.

I guess this is one of the most important points. On the face of it, creating a Devon & Cornwall franchise allows the scoring of political points, with vague notions of "giving the West Country control of their trains". A proactive operator could, with sufficient funding and a positive attitude, bring significant improvements in either rolling stock provision or service frequencies. However, splitting the loss-making ex-Wessex Trains local services from the profitable intercity routes only reveals the true extent of the losses, making it politically easier to justify either funding cuts or (more likely, I think) a no-growth franchise, even if this is not appropriate. The current arrangement with a single, monolithic franchise masks these losses to some extent.

The same would be seen if, for example, the Scotrail commuter routes of Glasgow and Edinburgh were separated from the Far North lines. Whilst this might allow a politician to say they've "given the far north control of their trains", it would reveal plainly just how much of a money pit the routes are.

 

[yorksrob]

I would suggest that the real reason for splitting off Devon & Cornwall and Berks & Hants services is to make the main GW franchise more attractive to prospective and potentially new bidders, rather like the split of Transpennine and Northern. Judging by the House of Commons yesterday, and by their twitter feeds, Westcountry Tory MPs are seriously alarmed at the prospect, fearing a reduction in through services from Paddington and reduced support for local services.

I fear the local mp's may have hit the nail on the head. The current franchise network works very well in the West Country, but I could imagine many bidders might baulk at the prospect of managing such a mix of routes.

 

[HowardGWR]

All the above instanced tender care of local lines can be achieved just as well by a local management department of the GWR franchisee looking after such services, which is what I understand is the case now. The shenanigans with rolling stock transfers seems to be more to do with the DfT telling franchisers what they may or may not do. If DfT is providing the subsidies, then it will call the shots, correctly, IMO. If local government, perhaps in combination, is doing so, then it's a question of what locals will pay or can pay . If we look at the proposed metro services around even a prosperous conurbation like Bristol / Bath, it's still the government providing the lion's share of the money.

 

[jimm]

Then along came First Great Western. The 158s went from Devon and Cornwall. So to did the nicely refurbished 150s and in their place we got a mixture of other operators un-refurbished cast-off 150s and lots of Pacers (which had not operated in Devon or Cornwall for many years prior to that, all locals had been sprinters).

I appreciate that in financial terms separating out the local West country services into a small local franchise would mean it would need to be heavily subsidised, but history would suggest it would not necessarily lead to a worse service.

Then along came First Great Western, which, when it took over, had to hand back a good number of the Wessex dmus to the leasing company, because someone at the DfT had decided that they were not needed by the new franchise...

The cast-off 150s eventually arrived when DfT finally accepted that more dmus were needed, because the franchise had been forced to start life with too few trains (by DfT) and because the efforts of FGW's local managers to develop traffic on services across Devon and Cornwall since 2006 had seen strong growth in passenger numbers on many services.

There is not going to be a small local franchise - have you actually looked at the DfT's consultation document? What it proposes is quite clearly a Wessex Trains Mk2, with the London-West Country services via the Berks & Hants line bolted on to try to minimise the subsidy that would be needed.

 

[Olaf]

The alignment of operators with the proposed split-off o fthe rail routes is a key factor in this consultation.

Similar work will need to be done for the Wessex route in coming years.

 

[IanXC]

There is a certain attractiveness of this proposal, but I think for me it really comes down to there being a logical way to split the franchise rather than that necessarily being a good idea in the first place.

What the DfT propose seems to me to create a West Country franchise which is too large, I'd be looking for this to be much more confined to the 802 via Berks and Hants services, and the Devon and Cornwall branches. I think the Bristol local services (principally what will be the Turbo routes) would sit much better staying with the 'Thames Valley - Wales' franchise.

 

[HowardGWR]

^^^I can't see anything 'logical' in such a proposal, at all. I also don't see why it would be necessary to bolt on the long route from Pad, just to disguise the local service subsidies. The subsidies are what they are. Surely it is much better to have all GW long distance services under one management structure, for both operation and maintenance? Having the local services under the same overall management supports good coordination of all services, too.

 

[IanXC]

^^^I can't see anything 'logical' in such a proposal, at all. I also don't see why it would be necessary to bolt on the long route from Pad, just to disguise the local service subsidies. The subsidies are what they are. Surely it is much better to have all GW long distance services under one management structure, for both operation and maintenance? Having the local services under the same overall management supports good coordination of all services, too.

I didn't say I thought the idea was logical, but that from a purely practical point of view there was a 'non messy' way of splitting the franchise (which is often not the case in other franchise split ideas). There is a certain something to be said from separating the Devon and Cornwall services, including their principal long distance services to the rest of the country from the rest of GWR, *if* you are looking for a way to devolve control of said services to local authorities in the far south west.

If the DfT are intent on smaller franchises, then I would suggest this would be a relatively good split as compared to many of the others that could be considered.

 

[Olaf]

The proposal is very clear in the issues it is addressing directly - it may not seem logical from the perspective of teh casual observer but is taking into account changing factors within the group of interested parties.

 

[HowardGWR]

Ah, I see, but I don't see a Devon and Cornwall Council consortium being very good managers of a local franchise there, like say a TfGM. They don't generally get on together very well you know!

 

[387165]

West Ealing - Greenford should be TFL Rail

 

[paulravuslante]

West Ealing - Greenford should be TFL Rail

A precident has been set with the Upminster - Romford shuttle being operated by London Overground though