TOC contract expiry dates

[Nicholas Lewis]

Was speaking to a couple of the Exec team who have been involved with this for some time yesterday and they are in very regular communication with SoS and are deep in the process of removing Transport UK from all contracts etc so it will be just a change of name or direct report when it does happen.

They are under the impression it will be by Summer 2025. They were told ownership will not be extended post 2026 contract expiry.

SoS has told the MD that GA and WMT will be 'one of the first 2' to be taken in-house. Dominic Booth is still in fighting mode but SoS has said the end is nigh.

Haigh is a conviction politician and she isnt going to move away from internalising TOCs as soon as he can.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Haigh is a conviction politician and she isnt going to move away from internalising TOCs as soon as he can.

Indeed it does seem that way. TUK's loss is hopefully everyone else's gain!

 

[lordbusiness]

Here comes the 'Don't give a Damn Railway'.

Can't wait.

 

[Goldfish62]

Here comes the 'Don't give a Damn Railway'.

Can't wait.

We've had that for the past few years.

 

[dk1]

We've had that for the past few years.

Not everywhere we haven’t

 

[DJ_K666]

Here comes the 'Don't give a Damn Railway'.

Can't wait.

Go to meet the friendly, welcoming staff at Blackpool North...

Oh wait...


I think some of their faces might crack if they smiled

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Was speaking to a couple of the Exec team who have been involved with this for some time yesterday and they are in very regular communication with SoS and are deep in the process of removing Transport UK from all contracts etc so it will be just a change of name or direct report when it does happe

It’s a bit more complex than just a change of name, the staff currently employed but the operators in question at all levels will have to decide whether to accept the TUPE to the new operator or leave (with the potential to go without serving notice period) and go elsewhere.

 

[dk1]

It’s a bit more complex than just a change of name, the staff currently employed but the operators in question at all levels will have to decide whether to accept the TUPE to the new operator or leave (with the potential to go without serving notice period) and go elsewhere.

I’m a bit confused by how you’ve put it there. Staff will just be TUPE’d across to the new operator on all existing T&Cs just how always happens when franchises change hands surely.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I’m a bit confused by how you’ve put it there. Staff will just be TUPE’d across to the new operator on all existing T&Cs just how always happens when franchises change hands surely.

The point being is they can't force you to move under TUPE but of course the majority will otherwise they lose income, years of service and anything else they may have acquired if safeguarded stff.

 

[dk1]

The point being is they can't force you to move under TUPE but of course the majority will otherwise they lose income, years of service and anything else they may have acquired if safeguarded stff.

It’s just a matter of course. We are always TUPE’d across every time with everything T&C wise intact. Anything else would not be acceptable or tolerated.

 

[Belperpete]

It’s a bit more complex than just a change of name, the staff currently employed but the operators in question at all levels will have to decide whether to accept the TUPE to the new operator or leave (with the potential to go without serving notice period) and go elsewhere.

You are correct that an employee has the right not work for the new employer, and does not have to work notice in such a situation. But anyone doing so forfeits the right to redundancy pay, and could be deemed to have made themselves deliberately redundant if they did not have good grounds for refusing to work for the new employer, affecting their eligibility for benefits. It could be a quick way out for someone who has already got themselves a better job, saving them from working their notice period, but there will surely be very few staff who take this option.

 

[dk1]

You are correct that an employee has the right not work for the new employer, and does not have to work notice in such a situation. But anyone doing so forfeits the right to redundancy pay, and could be deemed to have made themselves deliberately redundant if they did not have good grounds for refusing to work for the new employer, affecting their eligibility for benefits. It could be a quick way out for someone who has already got themselves a better job, saving them from working their notice period, but there will surely be very few staff who take this option.

From what I have witnessed with the very few who have left my grade at my TOC there is no insistance on an employee working out the necessary notice. If they have another job and need to leave asap then everything is done to assist them in that and wish them well.

 

[HerneHill]

SoS has told the MD that GA and WMT will be 'one of the first 2' to be taken in-house.

I wouldn’t be so sure just yet. That is certainly what the SoS wants - but during the HoL Report Stage debate of the Passenger Railway Services Bill on Wednesday, a “wrecking amendment” mandating that SoS must only exercise break clause termination by order of poorest performing TOC first (rather than by any other order such as chronological date of CTED) was pushed to a vote and accepted.

The government and Commons would certainly not want to accept the amendment as written, and so this would likely lead to a period of ‘ping pong’-ing, where both Houses come to a compromise on the amendment such that the overall bill can still pass.

Which means it now feels far less likely that GA will be nationalised first… the government will likely at least compromise on that! WMT maybe might still go, since they are relatively poorer performing.

Really quite pissed off that the expensive lobbying campaign by Dominic Booth and mob seems to have paid off… this is all the Owning Groups are good for, spending money on meaningless profiteering that don’t help the railway.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Really quite pissed off that the expensive lobbying campaign by Dominic Booth and mob seems to have paid off… this is all the Owning Groups are good for, spending money on meaningless profiteering that don’t help the railway.

Its pretty futile but i guess its his own money

 

[Clarence Yard]

Haigh won’t compromise - she will do it her way. The House of Lords amendments will be swiftly dealt with.

If anything, Dominic Booth will have sealed the fate of his TOCs by his actions.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I wouldn’t be so sure just yet. That is certainly what the SoS wants - but during the HoL Report Stage debate of the Passenger Railway Services Bill on Wednesday, a “wrecking amendment” mandating that SoS must only exercise break clause termination by order of poorest performing TOC first (rather than by any other order such as chronological date of CTED) was pushed to a vote and accepted..

Thanks for this, guessing with the execs being with us both Wednesday and Thursday they were not aware of this amendment, neither was I. Does make for an interesting future reading. Personally I'd like the better performing TOCs to be used to help set up how the future GBR runs.

 

[HerneHill]

Personally I'd like the better performing TOCs to be used to help set up how the future GBR runs.

I’ve been banging on and on about this from the outset, most disappointed that the government never used this argument! Even Dominic Booth said it in one of his puff pieces, not realising the argument actually works against him - what better way to absorb GA’s best practices that to bring it into the fold outright!

“The government should not shy away from consulting with operators which have managed to achieve success under the current system. Greater Anglia, for instance, could offer key insights into what has worked well for that business.”

Viewpoint: Do not rush UK rail reform

Given the scale of the task, the government should resist the temptation to push through hasty reform of the UK rail sector, argues Dominic Booth, Chief Executive of Transport UK Group.

www.railwaygazette.com

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I’ve been banging on and on about this from the outset, most disappointed that the government never used this argument! Even Dominic Booth said it in one of his puff pieces, not realising the argument actually works against him - what better way to absorb GA’s best practices that to bring it into the fold outright!

“The government should not shy away from consulting with operators which have managed to achieve success under the current system. Greater Anglia, for instance, could offer key insights into what has worked well for that business.”

I would like to think there is an element of this in play, despite that amendment, given how candid the team were about their frequent interactions with LH and the huge amount of work they are already doing to aid such a transition.

DB will fight this as hard as he can but it's clear the TOCs underneath his Owning Group are already answering to LH even if not currently regarding day-to-day operations

 

[Class 466]

I’ve been banging on and on about this from the outset, most disappointed that the government never used this argument! Even Dominic Booth said it in one of his puff pieces, not realising the argument actually works against him - what better way to absorb GA’s best practices that to bring it into the fold outright!

“The government should not shy away from consulting with operators which have managed to achieve success under the current system. Greater Anglia, for instance, could offer key insights into what has worked well for that business.”

Viewpoint: Do not rush UK rail reform

Given the scale of the task, the government should resist the temptation to push through hasty reform of the UK rail sector, argues Dominic Booth, Chief Executive of Transport UK Group.

www.railwaygazette.com

He’d be wiser to try and get in on Shadow GBR rather than fighting it from a Transport UK perspective - a company that’s only existed for 5 minutes because Abellio were desperate to ditch overseas operations.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't forget that TOC nationalisation is not the only task for the government - reorganising Network Rail to achieve an integrated railway is also part of the GBR agenda.
Louise Haigh has promised to "abolish" NR, presumably placing it in sectors/regions along with the relevant TOCs, under a unified management.
The details and timescale for this are uncertain, until the GBR legislation is published.

 

[lordbusiness]

I give GBR about 2-3 years until the Government (and country's) money runs out.......

Then we'll have another review

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I’ve been banging on and on about this from the outset, most disappointed that the government never used this argument! Even Dominic Booth said it in one of his puff pieces, not realising the argument actually works against him - what better way to absorb GA’s best practices that to bring it into the fold outright!

“The government should not shy away from consulting with operators which have managed to achieve success under the current system. Greater Anglia, for instance, could offer key insights into what has worked well for that business.”

Viewpoint: Do not rush UK rail reform

Given the scale of the task, the government should resist the temptation to push through hasty reform of the UK rail sector, argues Dominic Booth, Chief Executive of Transport UK Group.

www.railwaygazette.com

Burles has already bailed out although that ought to be a positive for NR to bring the passenger experience to them and help shape the future.

Personally i wouldn't move another operator until there is some sort of shadow structure in place. OLR is not much more than a holding company and shown itself inept at dealing with Northern's problems.

 

[En]

The point being is they can't force you to move under TUPE but of course the majority will otherwise they lose income, years of service and anything else they may have acquired if safeguarded stff.

Generally when a TUPE happens you have three options

1. TUPE to the new provider
2. move within the donoating organsiation and start you new role on or before the first day of the transfer
3. explore the options in dept P45

 

[Class 466]

I give GBR about 2-3 years until the Government (and country's) money runs out.......

Then we'll have another review

Given we are still in a position whereby the DFT is paying train companies a fee to run these services I don’t see this happening once millions aren’t going to the likes of Govia, First & Transport UK.

 

[dk1]

Generally when a TUPE happens you have three options

1. TUPE to the new provider
2. move within the donoating organsiation and start you new role on or before the first day of the transfer
3. explore the options in dept P45

I have never known anyone do other than TUPE across. What’s not to like? Just another logo on your name badge.

 

[sjpowermac]

I have never known anyone do other than TUPE across. What’s not to like? Just another logo on your name badge.

I think it depends on what other operators are in the vicinity of a driver’s workplace. As I understand it, when TPE moved from First to DOHL they immediately lost a number of drivers who had jobs lined up with freight companies.

 

[dk1]

I think it depends on what other operators are in the vicinity of a driver’s workplace. As I understand it, when TPE moved from First to DOHL they immediately lost a number of drivers who had jobs lined up with freight companies.

Ah okay. Thinking about it a few jumped ship when Virgin Trains lost Cross Country as they wanted to continue with Branson’s empire.

 

[Class 170101]

I have never known anyone do other than TUPE across. What’s not to like? Just another logo on your name badge.

Some mentioned on this board when TPE was transferred to OLR a couple of years ago that they had heard of people declining TUPE and leaving immediately

 

[thedbdiboy]

Some mentioned on this board when TPE was transferred to OLR a couple of years ago that they had heard of people declining TUPE and leaving immediately

I think that referred specifically to drivers who had better job offers elsewhere and could circumvent their usual notice period by 'refusing' TUPE

 

[GWR Modeller]

Nothing much in the way of new information, but an update on the transition of TOCs into public ownership nevertheless: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/our-progress-in-overhauling-the-railways