Can I clarify? I was involved (unfortunately) in franchise spec and (far more unfortunately) continue to be involved with what is laughably and somewhat loosely referred to as the "franchise management" with regard to this and Northern.
It's an error to think an "ORCATS raid" is something not in the franchise agreement (FA) Train Service Requirement (TSR) - or rather, that would be defining the term so narrowly that the term ceases to be useful.
Two main points here, really:
1. In both the TP and NT TSRs, there are a large number of services that feature in the FA TSR but were not in the Invitation To Tender (ITT) TSR, i.e. were not in the original franchise spec put out by DfT (with a bit of input from Rail North, as it then was). What is however striking, if you compare the ITT and FA versions for both franchises, is that overwhelmingly these "extras" were things that could be described as "ORCATS raids" in the sense that they were (a) strong existing rail markets, and (b) were currently mostly served by a different TOC. That does not mean to say that there were not also real passenger benefits to these "extras" in terms of quantum and/or through connectivity - but it's perfectly legitimate to question whether they are/were the things the North needs/needed most urgently. The reality, however, is that the headline premium / subsidy profiles of both TOCs were / are heavily dependent on these services running. (Examples of these "extras" are, NT, Leeds - Hull, York - Scarborough, and Calder - Liverpool; and on TPE the extension of the MIA - Yorks to Newcastle, and that of the Liverpool - Newcastles to Edinburgh. I'm not expressing an opinion on them here, just saying that there were prominent amongst the examples of "extras" in the FA TSRs.)
2. From that last point comes this: the TOCs were and are very, very keen to go ahead with these "extras". NT have much less bargaining power on the network and overstretched resources (and the franchise won't last much longer anyway). However TPE have been seen as able to survive, but only if essentially they are allowed a fairly free reign to maximise cost and minimise revenue..... OK, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but I have in mind the extremely "light regulatory touch" which allowed the Mark 3s not to be introduced; the North trans-Pennine capacity (strengthening) to be progressively reduced after 2016; the extension of the MIA-Yorks to happen despite lack of train capacity and dire performance on the core network; the "repaired" 350 to be returned to the RoSCo rather than used to re-strengthen the WCML fleet and reduce pressure on 185s until the 397s were in squadron service... and most recently to press ahead, I gather, with Liverpool - Newcastle - Edinburgh (TSR and other derogations have to be signed off by said franchise managers representing, ahem, the interests of the North). This is about prioritisation - if the franchise managers had insisted that the core network be adequately resourced by TPE before they allowed them to go ahead with NCL-EDB, then I think their fear may have been that TPE might have threatened to hand back the keys.
So actually, before you all lay on him, Failed Unit really isn't all that far off the mark!
PS Good post by Clarence Yard. I'm neither attacking nor defending the practice (well, not here anyway!), nor saying whether it is actually even the right thing to do commercially or not. I'll happily say the system is broken, but not in this post!
) as dft don’t want another franchise failure in the press - we have a general election you know.
