TOC contract expiry dates

[Lee898]

Yes. I recommend reading the Network SouthEast story by Chris Green. There was far more autonomy, flexibility and enthusiasm back then.

Talking of Chris Green, with one or two exceptions the senior managers back in the Bob Reid Mk 1 era were titans compared with the lamentable quality nowadays.

Quite. The Quality back then had folks back then that, from what I see, truly loved the Railway, it moreover sought to do railway work above crowd pleasing. However, with the complicated nature of our form of privatisation and the short term nature thereof, I believe the growth in such personnel is stunted rather than left to thrive.

 

[physics34]

*duplicate

 

[Clarence Yard]

There are currently 10 private DfT TOC contracts, and we now know that 3 will transfer to DOL in 2025.
Of the 7 remaining contracts on 1 Jan 2026, all of them will be past their core term expiry dates except Avanti (Oct 2026) and Cross Country (Oct 2027).
So at 4 per year the DfT should be able to complete TOC transfers by October 2027.
The most obvious date is that for the West Midlands Trains contract which fully expires in Sept 2026.

That still leaves the non-DfT concession contracts: LO (Arriva), EL (Tokyo Metro/Go-Ahead) and Merseyrail (Transport UK/Serco) in private hands, at least for now.
Arriva's contract for LO expires in May 2026, the Merseyrail contract expires in 2028 and the new 7-year Elizabeth line contract expires in 2032.

Not quite. EMR has a CTED of 18/10/26.

So if they stick to CTED, the order for 2026 will be W.Mids, GTR or Chiltern and then GWR.
2027 will be EMR or Avanti, then finally XC.

If they let W.Mids run to the end, they could just shunt the others for 2026 forward a slot.

 

[Snow1964]

This is only a first step...but an absolutely essential one.

Can you explain.

Before the management contracts, incentivised to boost revenue by getting a share of the extra, now just seems to be different owner and no published improvement plans. So personally I need convincing this first step is anything more than talk and no real action.

 

[LUYMun]

Earlier today Keir Starmer's Twitter account posted a message announcing the move to bring SWR into public ownership, but says it'll be done "now" rather than May as specified in various sources... this sort of mixed communications from the Labour party isn't going to look good for the general public.

x.com

x.com

Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
We’re delivering on our promise to fix our broken railways. South Western Railway is now back in public control. Better services for passengers. Better value for taxpayers. My government is rebuilding Britain.

 

[1D54]

He truly believes that SWR is now back in public control. The man is so far removed from reality that it is beyond belief.

 

[bengley]

He truly believes that SWR is now back in public control. The man is so far removed from reality that it is beyond belief.

Do you think he posted that himself? I don't.

 

[I_am_Nobody]

It’s likely a scheduling error. Tried scheduling the tweet for May, pressed publish now instead… that’s what I put it down to, anyway.

 

[1D54]

Do you think he posted that himself? I don't.

If not then surely he will have been made aware of it and have it deleted.

 

[camflyer]

There is a bit more detail in this Written Ministerial Statement. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-12-04/hcws281

In a way, I'm going to miss Greater Anglia. They are one of the best performing rail operators and have delivered significant improvements over recent years. Far better than under previous franchises especially National Express East Anglia.

Let's just hope that nationalisation works this time because if it doesn't then it's not clear what Plan B is.

 

[Wolfie]

In a way, I'm going to miss Greater Anglia. They are one of the best performing rail operators and have delivered significant improvements over recent years. Far better than under previous franchises especially National Express East Anglia.

Let's just hope that nationalisation works this time because if it doesn't then it's not clear what Plan B is.

They got much better after a poor start.

 

[camflyer]

That'll be sectorisation. The business model whereby BR was growing into a successful and highly efficient business, before dogmatic privatisation dismantled it all.

The main problem with Network South East (and indeed the whole BR network) was a lack of investment in rolling stock. NSE was reasonably well run with the tools it had available but it was running trains which should have been retired 20 years earlier.

 

[Gooner18]

I’m not so convinced going back to the days of BR is such a great idea. From what I remember the railways were dirty , old and extremely unreliable compared to now , also i wonder whether wages and conditions would be as they are now if it had stayed in state hands being as public sector workers have hardly had any pay raises in the last 15 odd years

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

BR had to live within annual budgets set by the Treasury, with occasional cuts to reflect the economy, and occasional capital hand-outs for a few projects.
In contrast, privatisation until 2019 gave each individual franchise 7-15 years of funding to deliver promised service developments.
Network Rail had 5-year funding in its control periods, with enhancements on top.
All this was independent of the political cycle, and protected the railway during economic downturns (until Covid).
We appear to be slipping back into a hand-to-mouth funding model.

 

[physics34]

I’m not so convinced going back to the days of BR is such a great idea. From what I remember the railways were dirty , old and extremely unreliable compared to now , also i wonder whether wages and conditions would be as they are now if it had stayed in state hands being as public sector workers have hardly had any pay raises in the last 15 odd years

But at one point they weren't old unreliable and dirty... that was the lack of investment mid 70s til the early 90s. If it's run right it could be a great system.

Wages wouldn't have risen as much, no. This is something i have to remind my colleagues who are anti privatisation!

 

[Gooner18]

But at one point they weren't old unreliable and dirty... that was the lack of investment mid 70s til the early 90s. If it's run right it could be a great system.

Wages wouldn't have risen as much, no. This is something i have to remind my colleagues who are anti privatisation!

I would argue that lack of investment in those years was due to a decline in use compared to previous years. I feel it’s going to be a case of “ be careful what you wish for “ for all those who are pro state ownership.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I imagine an exercise similar to Northern will take place with SWR then because 'First MTR South Western Trains Limited' own the trademark for SWR as a Figurative rather than as Words.

 

[coppercapped]

many of the immediate post war nationalisations were becasue the government had taken control of the previously privately or charitably managed services , organisatiosn and infrastructure duringthe war , paying to repaitr and return these things to a pre-war condition was vastly more expensive than just buying people out or in the case of things like Hospitals pointing out that the EMS hospitals were actually better than the former county pauper lunatic asylums etc ...

Coming back to this thread after some time away…

I should like to point out that while this opinion is widely believed this was not the reason why the Attlee government nationalised so many industries.

In 1942 the annual Labour Conference, with an eye on Clause IV of its constitution[1], passed a resolution urging the Government to coordinate road, rail and canal transport under national ownership - with the aim of aiding the war effort. By this time, it should be pointed out, the railways were already /operated/ as one unit so it wasn't a big step to suggest they should be one business.

So, the Labour Party had committed itself to nationalising the railways by 1942 before the extent of the excessive wear and tear due to the war effort could have been known. In addition, paying compensation to the shareholders of all these industries cost a lot of money - so the idea that the Government could have saved money by not paying compensation to the railway companies or any of the other industries that were nationalised — does not stand up to scrutiny.

[1] The following text, written by Sidney Webb in 1917, became Clause IV (since replaced) of the Labour Party’s constitution:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

The early replacement of slam door stock of which some was less than 30 years old was more a safety requirement than anything else.

Nothing wrong with private investment in the public sector. I'm not a dogmatist. Which works both ways of course - I'm sure some people would privatise their grandmother if they could.

The point is that the government could decree the replacement of the slam-door stock — making itself appear to be on the side of the angels — knowing it would not have to pay for the replacements.

Do you honestly think that the stock would have been replaced so quickly if the money had to be argued for every year from the Treasury?

Added in edit:
Between 1996 and 1999 the ROSCOs ordered some 2,360 vehicles for a total cost of £2,372 million, over £4 billion in today’s money. Two points are worth noting:

• over the last decade or so of its existence BR ordered an average of some 250 passenger vehicles a year because of limitations in the supply of capital funds from the Treasury
• The ROSCOs, not having this constraint, in the first three years ordered some 750 vehicles a year, three times as many.

 

[3RDGEN]

BR had to live within annual budgets set by the Treasury, with occasional cuts to reflect the economy, and occasional capital hand-outs for a few projects.
In contrast, privatisation until 2019 gave each individual franchise 7-15 years of funding to deliver promised service developments.
Network Rail had 5-year funding in its control periods, with enhancements on top.
All this was independent of the political cycle, and protected the railway during economic downturns (until Covid).
We appear to be slipping back into a hand-to-mouth funding model.

Spot on, the franchise contracts once signed meant the plans went ahead unless both parties agreed a change that suited them or the franchisee handed the keys back. As you say in the nationalised world the DfT/Treasury will just pull the "promised" funding at the first sign of a recession/down turn. NSE had grand plans for fleets of Networker's after the initial 16x & 36x/46x deliveries to replace their fleets but the early 1990's recession meant the DfT just told them to not even ask for investment approval. That's one reason rolling programs of fleet renewals or electrification schemes don't happen.

 

[12LDA28C]

DfT OLR Holdings Ltd (as was) is a wholly owned DfT company and is not unaccountable. It is responsible to the DfT (and therefore parliament) and its accounting officer is the permanent secretary at the DfT.

It is not “profit making” and receives no management fees, unlike the previous private “owners” of the TOCs. Its staff are salaried employees, not consultants.

Its staff… oh yes, all twelve of them. Think they might need a few more.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Its staff… oh yes, all twelve of them. Think they might need a few more.

There will be a few spare senior managers in the owning groups going spare shortly...

 

[Djgr]

Can you explain.

Before the management contracts, incentivised to boost revenue by getting a share of the extra, now just seems to be different owner and no published improvement plans. So personally I need convincing this first step is anything more than talk and no real action.

Well perhaps you do but to me it seems fairly obviously a first step.

And in your post you highlight that a change has occurred (which is often alternatively called a step)

 

[185]

There will be a few spare senior managers in the owning groups going spare shortly...

This seems to be the OLR pattern, tupe all of them over, few months later carefully go through their stunning CV* / catalogue of disasters* (delete as appropriate) then get rid of the worst troublemakers at the top, keep who you need.

Said troublemakers (5, and counting) then climb out of the garbage chute and then wander off to run... err ruin Firstgroup's Avanti West Coast. Allegedly.

 

[ConorW2000]

With SWR coming under the GBR brand soon, I wonder if those already under public ownership like LNER, Northern and Southeastern, will be next?

 

[JonathanH]

With SWR coming under the GBR brand soon, I wonder if those already under public ownership like LNER, Northern and Southeastern, will be next?

Is there a GBR brand yet?

 

[thomalex]

Is there a GBR brand yet?

Not yet, it's being referred to as Shadow GBR I have noticed as details of what GBR will look like, or how it will even operate, haven't been detailed yet.

It's what these guys will be working on as we speak presumably

Great British Railways Transition Team

The Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT) is working to deliver the most ambitious changes to our railway in a generation, in partnership with the government and the whole rail sector.

gbrtt.co.uk

 

[Djgr]

Not yet, it's being referred to as Shadow GBR I have noticed as details of what GBR will look like, or how it will even operate, haven't been detailed yet.

It's what these guys will be working on as we speak presumably

Great British Railways Transition Team

The Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT) is working to deliver the most ambitious changes to our railway in a generation, in partnership with the government and the whole rail sector.

gbrtt.co.uk

Isn't their logo at the top of their website?

 

[ollyexe2808]

R.E. the arguments for and against public ownership - without wanting to stray too far from the scope of this thread....I think harking back to either the "good ol' days" of BR or talking about the issues is a little unhelpful.... arguably there are many models of state ownership across Europe where public ownership (or public control) produces good results on the railway. One of the potential good signs is the Treasury having moved towards a model of costing that includes the benefits of investment as well as the costs. Surely this means that there is more scope for longer term funding and holistic costing that includes long term benefits to society? Perhaps I am naïve but my general view is that a large scale public network should, at the very least, have a model of ownership that allows it to function as a coherent network. AFAIK, the original Williams Plan for Rail Reform alludes to this and that was the driver behind GBR and brining TOCs under public control (though it didn't go as far as public ownership) in the first place.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not yet, it's being referred to as Shadow GBR I have noticed as details of what GBR will look like, or how it will even operate, haven't been detailed yet.
It's what these guys will be working on as we speak presumably

The GBRTT has been at it for more than three years, with very little to show for it yet, bar the selection of Derby as the HQ.
Admittedly their terms of reference will have been altered several times with each change of Secretary of State (the last time being only days ago).
You can bill the cost to "renationalisation".

 

[ollyexe2808]

The GBRTT has been at it for more than three years, with very little to show for it yet, bar the selection of Derby as the HQ.
Admittedly their terms of reference will have been altered several times with each change of Secretary of State (the last time being only days ago).
You can bill the cost to "renationalisation".

Could one argue what happened in that time in the wider politics spectrum had a big impact? Boris Johnson was in charge when the Williams-[Shapps] Plan was published, with the idea being that it would be a public controlled network overseeing concessions like with TfL. Then he was deposed and Liz Truss, ideologically opposed to nationalisation, all but scrapped the idea, not including time in the parliamentary session for it to progress. Then under Rishi Sunak, it was resurrected but cannibalised to such an extent that the original concepts were made to include more private influence. A chaotic early election meant everything was put on ice, then Labour committed to rail reform and all the recommendations in the Williams-[Shapps] Plan and then some.

So yes, there isn't much to show but that has been because 3-4 ideologies have happened since its formation.