• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TOC contract expiry dates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peregrine 4903

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2019
Messages
1,492
Location
London
Many cuts remain. All of the Dartford lines won't have seen services restored after Dec change. Still some large cuts.

Hayes line still has poor frequency.

Orpington finally goes back from 2tph to 4 tph but not on weekends which is silly as can be busy.

Both SE and SWR suburban routes have seen poor levels of service hampering recovery. I've no idea about HS1 as about as relevant to many SE passengers on suburban routes as c2c.
Hayes line has 4tph, how is that poor frequency? I do find some of these complaints about Southeastern metro baffling.

Sidcup line has 4tph, Bexleyheath line has 5tph, and Greenwich line has 4tph to Charlton and then 6tph from Charlton to Slade Green. What more do you want? Only thing I can think of is Charing Cross to Bexleyheath service going back to half hourly.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

positron

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2023
Messages
231
Location
Cardiff
Parliament may be sovereign, but Government is still subject to laws. If a public authority goes beyond the bounds of legality then it’s entirely correct that people or companies should have recourse to the courts.
The suggestion being made is that the “break clause” isn’t entirely watertight so the owning group would be able to challenge it.
They've already gone the nice route of allowing these companies to continue existing longer than they should have rather than nationalising in one go. If there were known problems with the break clause they should have dealt with it as part of the legislation so we're not waiting till 2031...

Though if there was an issue with the break clause it'd be odd for greater Anglia to be ended next autumn, that's still early?
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,767
Location
Selhurst
Hayes line has 4tph, how is that poor frequency? I do find some of these complaints about Southeastern metro baffling.

Sidcup line has 4tph, Bexleyheath line has 5tph, and Greenwich line has 4tph to Charlton and then 6tph from Charlton to Slade Green. What more do you want? Only thing I can think of is Charing Cross to Bexleyheath service going back to half hourly.
Agreed SE are in a far better position than SWR so I have no idea why they are comparable
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,831
Checked with my friend who works at SWR, who checked their work phone in front of me. Absolutely nothing internally!

There won’t be as it should be timed with the announcement to the market, to comply with stock market rules. Presumably timed for tomorrow morning. The press have jumped the gun.
 
Joined
2 Feb 2019
Messages
450
Parliament may be sovereign, but Government is still subject to laws. If a public authority goes beyond the bounds of legality then it’s entirely correct that people or companies should have recourse to the courts.
The suggestion being made is that the “break clause” isn’t entirely watertight so the owning group would be able to challenge it.
The Greater Anglia contract is at the following link and includes the following clauses. As the Secretary of State for Transport has announced that Greater Anglia will come under public control in the autumn of next year (2025) I assume she will be giving at least three Reporting Periods' notice that the contract shall expire at 01.59 on the first day of a Reporting Period in the autumn of 2025.
2. DURATION OF THIS CONTRACT
2.1 This Contract shall expire on the Expiry Date or pursuant to Chapter 9.4 (Remedies and Dispute Resolution).
2.2 Expiry on or after the Core Term Expiry Date
(a) If the Secretary of State gives at least three (3) Reporting Periods' notice to the Operator pursuant to this clause 2.2 (an “Expiry Notice”), this Contract shall expire on such date as the Secretary of State may stipulate in the Expiry Notice, provided that such date shall be:
(i) no earlier than the Core Term Expiry Date;
(ii) no later than the date set out in limb (a)(i) of the definition of “Expiry Date”;
and
(iii) 01.59 on the first day of a Reporting Period.
“Core Term Expiry Date” means the later of:
(a) 01.59 on 15 September 2024; or
(b) Not Used;
“Expiry Date” means:
(a) the later of:
(i) 01.59 on 20 September 2026; or
(ii) Not Used; or
(b) any earlier date specified in an Expiry Notice issued in accordance with clause 2.2 (Expiry on or after the Core Term Expiry Date);
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,288
Location
London
Isn't the *whole* point of having a parliament with absolute power that when they pass legislation they're NOT open to legal action... Just nationalise them and the courts should throw the case out.

Parliament is sovereign, and the government could indeed simply pass legislation nullifying the contracts they have signed up to. However, if they did so, how many organisations would be prepared to deal with them in the future? Reputation and credibility are vitally important.

The government of a stable democracy needs to abide by its own agreements and deal with those organisations it contracts with in good faith.
 

positron

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2023
Messages
231
Location
Cardiff
Parliament is sovereign, and the government could technically pass legislation nullifying the contracts they have signed up to. However, if they did so, how many organisations would be prepared to deal with them in the future?
But that's not what Louise Haigh proposed, she was proposing to follow the contracts and serve notice. My point is simply that they passed legislation specifically intended to allow them to fulfil a manifesto commitment for an election that got them a majority government. Threats of legal action at that point just shouldn't be a problem.

Also they're the government organisations don't really have a choice but to deal with them...
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,288
Location
London
But that's not what Louise Haigh proposed, she was proposing to follow the contracts and serve notice. My point is simply that they passed legislation specifically intended to allow them to fulfil a manifesto commitment for an election that got them a majority government. Threats of legal action at that point just shouldn't be a problem.

But following the contracts and serving notice is exactly what they are doing. If the contract contains an unfavourably (to government) worded break clause the failing was with the government department that negotiated it in the first place. They couldn’t just move the goal posts when it suits and expect to retain credibility.

Also they're the government organisations don't really have a choice but to deal with them...

Large multinational organisations choose which governments they deal with. Governments that don’t honour their own agreements aren’t likely to be looked upon favourably.
 
Last edited:

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
8,961
Location
London
I have to ask... why does a Government Transport Secretary think it's a good idea to specifically make announcements through an article on a newspaper's website, rather than through... Government channels?

It's a press release. It will be on multiple newspaper websites eventually.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
8,961
Location
London
Except it’s not - the Mirror article by Heidi Alexander is an opinion piece under her own name!

Mirror has always been a Labour-facing newspaper, but it is a rather odd way of doing it. Besides it will be all over nationals by tomorrow.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
7,809
Location
West Wiltshire
Checked with my friend who works at SWR, who checked their work phone in front of me. Absolutely nothing internally!
The SWR end date has been public info for nearly 2 years, however there has not yet been a formal announcement on what happens afterwards. Anything involving a plc tends to be a 7am release to stock market, so presumably will be tomorrow
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
20,843
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Will anything change day to day? Probably not, the higher ups will change but with no threat of "if you don't meet target X you won't get this performance related bonus" some of the management will go into a state of "can't be bothered doing more than actually needed"
I'd be surprised if performance related pay was not common in arms-length public bodies.
I also doubt that the financial shackles will be any easier under direct government control.
It all depends on the kind of contract the DfT will apply to its TOCs.
 

Stephen42

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2020
Messages
385
Location
London
But that's not what Louise Haigh proposed, she was proposing to follow the contracts and serve notice. My point is simply that they passed legislation specifically intended to allow them to fulfil a manifesto commitment for an election that got them a majority government. Threats of legal action at that point just shouldn't be a problem.

Also they're the government organisations don't really have a choice but to deal with them...
The threat of legal action could relate to February - using Greater Anglia quote above: The only reporting period in February 2025 starts the 2nd, 84 days in advance is November 10th which has already passed. A company could legitimately claim loss of earnings, costs it couldn't avoid etc if not given the notice listed in the contract and negotiating that compensation can be a huge task in itself. Serving notice before royal assent can also be legally problematic as the minister doesn't have parliamentary backing.

I wouldn't put much weight on those kind of comments. Often it will be fragments of the conversation and a far more nuanced discussion has taken place which the source hasn't seen or doesn't fit the narrative they want to promote.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,081
Location
Surrey
All that will happen is First South Western Plc will become a subsidiary of DfT OLR Holdings Ltd with the First directors replaced by OLR directors the rest of the management team will stay in the same roles and nothing else will change in the short term. DfT will save the mgt fee and the performance fee although how much FSWR have been earning couldn't have been much. Be interesting to see if OLR put in a new MD.
 

vuzzeho

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2022
Messages
204
Location
London
Do we expect the formal announcement tomorrow to bring more details, or just be an official rehash of the same stuff?
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,081
Location
Surrey
Politics will come into play and as its the first one and SWRs a poor performer they will likely want a new broom(s) somewhere in the chain to look like somethings changing, it's what OLR did at all their TOCs bar LNER I think.

Can it still be called South Western Railway? I know the DFT own South West Trains as a trademark and FG may object!!
Steve White stayed at SE.

SWR is mid table on performance and the only one not to have abused P coded cancellations.

Its only moving as the clocks run out on the contract. Be interesting to know if Haigh would have moved on others quicker or whether this was always the strategy.
 

450.emu

Member
Joined
21 May 2015
Messages
246
Do we expect the formal announcement tomorrow to bring more details, or just be an official rehash of the same stuff?
Wonder if there will be something similar to BR livery? Quite coincidental that SWR repainted one of their 455s into BR blue / grey.

They could initially add the Double Arrow on the carriages if they have not agreed on a livery yet. Similar to London buses, where operator logos are allowed, but all vehicles bear the TfL Roundel on all over red.

Those new 701 Aventras are a great colour, they could remove the SWR logo and add the Double Arrow in its place.

Wondering how much of this news is scrabbling by the Government to move on from Haigh's sudden departure?
 
Joined
25 Jan 2016
Messages
552
Location
Wolverhampton
Official Government announcement is below plus in the link, that South Western is first in the Spring, C2C is in the Summer and Greater Angela is in the Autumn.

Plans to overhaul the rail network and put passengers first have been announced today (4 December 2024) as the Transport Secretary reveals South Western Railways’ services will be the first to transfer into public ownership next year.

The move comes just days after one of the government’s first major piece of legislation, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, received Royal Assent, paving the way for a major shake-up of Britain’s railways.

The transition to a publicly owned railway will improve reliability and support the government’s number one priority of boosting economic growth by encouraging more people to use the railway.

It will also clamp down on unacceptable levels of delays, cancellations and waste seen under decades of failing franchise contracts and will save up to £150 million a year in fees alone by ensuring every penny is spent on services rather than private shareholders, all while coming at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

Today’s announcement will see services across a wide area of southern England and East Anglia come back into public control by autumn 2025 and delivers on manifesto commitment to bring contracts with existing operators into public ownership as they expire without costing taxpayers a penny in compensation.

This government is fixing the foundations and delivering change with reform and investment to deliver growth and rebuild Britain. By bringing train operating companies into public ownership the government will turn the page on decades of delays, fragmentation and failure.
 

HerneHill

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2024
Messages
72
Location
London
Official Government announcement is below plus in the link, that South Western is first in the Spring, C2C is in the Summer and Greater Angela is in the Autumn.
Thanks for spotting! Confirms the 3 TOCs’ timelines announced in the Mirror piece yesterday, plus that “of Last Resort Holdings” will be dropped from DOHL’s name
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
7,809
Location
West Wiltshire
The Press release includes

The transition to a publicly owned railway will improve reliability and support the government’s number one priority of boosting economic growth by encouraging more people to use the railway.

It will also clamp down on unacceptable levels of delays, cancellations and waste seen under decades of failing franchise contracts

So better reliability, lower delays and cancellations, and all because owner is different. Really can that just happen magically if same staff on the ground are employed

 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,874
The Press release includes



So better reliability, lower delays and cancellations, and all because owner is different. Really can that just happen magically if same staff on the ground are employed

Eventually when everything is together there are operational advantages.
 

ollyexe2808

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2023
Messages
56
Location
Exeter
The Press release includes



So better reliability, lower delays and cancellations, and all because owner is different. Really can that just happen magically if same staff on the ground are employed

(Caveat that I don't know much about this subject, I am saying this based on what I have absorbed!)

I assume the latter part is related to the formation of GBR in terms of having better integration and a network that is not so fragmented. Whilst much can be debated on the relative benefits or lack thereof of current nationalised TOCs, it is safe to say they have been operated under a lacklustre government that hasn't really cared for Rail. The hope (wish?) is that GBR will have some autonomy to have a better control of the network, better planning and therefore, long term, fewer cancellations? But again, I am not well read, just my assumption that the Williams Plan for Rail is the basis of this change.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
20,414
Location
West of Andover
..
All that will happen is First South Western Plc will become a subsidiary of DfT OLR Holdings Ltd with the First directors replaced by OLR directors the rest of the management team will stay in the same roles and nothing else will change in the short term. DfT will save the mgt fee and the performance fee although how much FSWR have been earning couldn't have been much. Be interesting to see if OLR put in a new MD.
So instead of paying First Group they will instead be paying the unaccountable 'OLR Holdings ltd" money to attempt to run the railway.

Don't worry I'm sure like with Northern things can only get better, single units all around other than in the high peaks most likely
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
7,809
Location
West Wiltshire
Eventually when everything is together there are operational advantages.
That was my thought, that common fleet types are ability to move some between areas will help longer term.

But specifically says Transition (not eventually, or later during Transition) will improve and transition starts day SWR is taken over, so how will improvements happen from day 1 of transition, because as strictly stated in the wording used it applies to all dates in transition period. ie delays/cancellations fall from when transition commences. Doesn't say gradual changes, is absolute that will be better during (therefore throughout) the transition.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
3,576
Location
SW London
Isn't the *whole* point of having a parliament with absolute power that when they pass legislation they're NOT open to legal action... Just nationalise them and the courts should throw the case out.
Indeed, but Parliament and the Government are two different things. It is Parliament which passes legislation, and Ministers can get called to account by Parliament if they act outside the powers that have been passed by Parliament. That is part of the Speaker's role.
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,874
That was my thought, that common fleet types are ability to move some between areas will help longer term.

But specifically says Transition (not eventually, or later during Transition) will improve and transition starts day SWR is taken over, so how will improvements happen from day 1 of transition, because as strictly stated in the wording used it applies to all dates in transition period. ie delays/cancellations fall from when transition commences. Doesn't say gradual changes, is absolute that will be better during (therefore throughout) the transition.
Pure spin lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top