Virgin-and-Stagecoach demand scrapping of rail franchises

[WatcherZero]

That only indicates that the UK had a very low number of passengers before. Switzerland still has way more patronage per capita. That is like saying someone at school improving from a grade E to a grade C is better than someone who always gets an A. And how do you know that rail patronage wouldn't have increased under a different system? London's economy has boomed in the last 20 years and a lot of the rail growth is as a result of that.

It could be argued the rest of the countries economy has stagnated if not declined slightly over the same period however and far from matched Londons growth however the passenger growth has been similar despite a massive disparity in investment outside the capital.

Over the last 12 years since ORR started recording a breakdown by sector
London and SE 70.06%
Intercity long distance 73.2%
Regional 66.4%

 

[Old Yard Dog]

There is a huge bias in favour of franchised operators when paths are allocated. It takes Grand Central around 100 minutes to get from Bradford to Doncaster which is about 35 miles as the crow flies. This is not all down to slow line speeds but also to long waits en route.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I think Sir Richard Branson said before the 2012 franchise issue that he thought rail franchising should be scrapped. I kind of agree though that Franchised Operators are at a disadvantage compared to Open Access Operators as the Open Access Operators are allowed to cherry pick the best time to operate.

Cherry picking? Hardly! OAOs are (almost) at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to paths.

The first Southbound Hull Trains service leaves Beverley at 0602 and is scheduled to arrive at Kings Cross at 0913. The first East Coast arrivals are 0700 from Newark, 0731 and 0752 from Leeds and 0812 from Newcastle.

Grand Central do even worse on the West Yorkshire route: 0655 from Bradford Interchange, arriving 1014, and a last return at 1952. The Sunderland route isn't much better either: 0645 from Sunderland, arriving 1020, and 1918 return.

Wrexham and Shropshire (RIP) did slightly better in terms of departure times, but had less than optimal paths. Initially 0542 from Wrexham General, arriving Marylebone 0954, with 1 hour 21 minutes allowed between Banbury and Marylebone. Last return at 2003, arriving 2357. By March 2009 (can't find any later timetables through archive.org) that had become 0512 but arriving at 0857 (1 hour 11 between Banbury and Marylebone), but still with the same slow path for the 2003 return.

 

[The Planner]

Who do you suppose currently writes the timetable?

Quite plainly someone else does!

 

[yorksrob]

Well it is very noticable that, in the short time since Stagecoach lost the competition from East Coast for the Sheffield to London market, available Advance tickets on both the direct service to St Pancras and the route changing at Doncaster are now generally 2 or 3 levels (i.e. around 20%) higher* than they were when one owning company did not price both routes.

*At the time of day I normally travel anyway.

Quite.

The idea that, given a free run of things, Virgin/Stagecoach will somehow drive down fares is pure la la fantasy land.

 

[DarloRich]

This seems like a cynical and blatant attempt by the TOCS to develop a system that will increase their profits and dividends at the expense of the passenger. We need more direct, like for like competition not less!

It is odd how the free market is king, precisely until someone comes along to offer a better service for less. Surely the central plank of the free market is competition. What are the TOCS scared of?

VT/Stagecoach already have a virtual monopoly on north - south intercity travel in this country. That is anti competitive (despite what the supine regulators might say) and has an impact upon the fares we as passengers pay

Whilst in theory this is a sensible suggestion the quote below is my big fear in all this. The TOC and government will not develop a fair system.

So higgest bidder gets the paths, of course that wouldn't favour Virgin/Stagecoach over the smaller operator at all now would it.....

If they followed the model used by airports there would be limits to how many paths a single operator could hold. So it wouldn't all be down to who pays the most.

If you think a fair system would be developed you are very naive! The system produced will be even more anti competitive than we have now and will be designed to ensure only TOCs can run services

It funny when I was travelling on train to Birmingham last month virgin was cheaper than open access operator London Midland who have more trains between Liverpool and Birmingham

Ah right my mistake, my point still stand that they are more expensive for the exact same journey than virgin

it isn't the same journey though is it? LM offer a much lower standard and speed than Virgin and do not offer like for like "inter city" services. However, there is, at least a choice for the customer if not like for like competition.

The like for like competition on Brum - London now comes between Chiltern and VT and Chiltern are winning

I agree Open Access is primarily abstractive. To me on rail competition is a fallacy, and the railway is better acting as one to compete against the car.

Whereas those of us in the real world know that the only way prices are kept honest is through competition. Do you honestly believe that VTEC would price their York/Doncaster to London tickets as they do without direct competition from GC/HT?

You have obviously misremembered what was published at the time of privatisation. When the franchising model was selected as the method to get state payments to private operators who were required to run loss making services, the competition was for the franchise, not for a particular passenger on a route. This was always clear. The franchisee was essentially granted a monopoly limited in time and space for his group of services.

That all seems somewhat different to the words of Mr McGregor at the time.............

 

[Bletchleyite]

Driving down fares is not the only aim of competition - there is also improved service.

 

[DarloRich]

Driving down fares is not the only aim of competition - there is also improved service.

but we get neither!

 

[bluenoxid]

Wont HS2 shake capacity up somewhat and allow some of the options being considered.

 

[yorksrob]

Driving down fares is not the only aim of competition - there is also improved service.

But value for money is a key factor in quality of service for most people, and key to this is knowing that affordable fares are most likely to be available roughly when you need them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

but we get neither!

The service on the WCML is light years ahead of what it was in BR days, in terms of all of speed, quality and frequency. InterCity West Coast was terrible; I am old enough to remember it (many on here aren't).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

but we get neither!

Without higher subsidy we won't get lower walk-up fares, and those are the core offering. I was interested to read on here just how low the profit margin of a TOC is.

Similarly, despite a much higher profit margin, I don't find that monopoly bus companies price-gouge.

 

[DarloRich]

The service on the WCML is light years ahead of what it was in BR days, in terms of all of speed, quality and frequency. InterCity West Coast was terrible; I am old enough to remember it (many on here aren't).

oh i am old enough to remember it thank you! (sadly )

All brought about because of line upgrade works that had very little to do with the TOC

 

[D1009]

The service on the WCML is light years ahead of what it was in BR days, in terms of all of speed, quality and frequency. InterCity West Coast was terrible; I am old enough to remember it (many on here aren't).

If you thought Inter City West Coast was bad, try comparing the service between Banbury and Marylebone in those days with what there is today.

 

[Stats]

However this system would require NR to be able to plan all the paths and I don't think they have the manpower and I doubt the skills to do this.

Ahem! http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Careers/operational-planner/

A job I'd love to do if it paid a starting salary I could live on.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Under the DfT we have the situation where both Scotland to London routes are controlled by Stagecoach and both Yorkshire to London routes are controlled by Stagecoach.

Damn right the current franchising model isn't working.

The service on the WCML is light years ahead of what it was in BR days, in terms of all of speed, quality and frequency. InterCity West Coast was terrible; I am old enough to remember it (many on here aren't).

Whilst I agree with you, I don't see why that is relevant.

Virgin West Coast were just as bad in the first few years of privatisation, given that it was the same trains running the same route; the only thing that changes was Branson knowingly left no price ungouged.

The West Coast modernisation had precious little to do with Virgin, and would have happened under any operator. Indeed it might even have been cheaper under another operator, as Railtrack wouldn't have had Branson fleecing them for billions in "compensation", all of which ended up in the Cayman Islands without passing go and certainly without making it into the pockets of the passengers who were actually inconvenienced.

I agree Open Access is primarily abstractive. To me on rail competition is a fallacy, and the railway is better acting as one to compete against the car.

Except the evidence is rail fares are lower where there are competing TOCs than where there aren't, and when the competing TOCs are "simplified" then fares rise rapidly. We saw that when Great Eastern and Anglia were merged on Ipswich-Colchester-London, we're about to see it now Thameslink and Southern have been merged on Brighton-London, and we saw it in reverse when WAGN was split in two and there started to be competition on the Cambridge-London route.

I've also seen it, more anecdotally, travelling from London to Yorkshire. It is now all but impossible to get cheap tickets on East Midlands Trains to Leeds now that Stagecoach have both routes, whereas before EMT were a sure-fire way of getting to London cheaply.

The fact is that "the car" isn't a competitor and, even if it is, it has no influence on either pricing or service quality. The only thing that influences prices and quality is competition. We saw that on the ECML when Grand Central started; suddenly East Coast decided that running York-London non-stop was important again, and it has knocked 20 minutes off the journey time from Newcastle to London.

 

[LLivery]

If you thought Inter City West Coast was bad, try comparing the service between Banbury and Marylebone in those days with what there is today.

Dare I say that the Chiltern began being upgraded by BR/NSE in the 90s and Chiltern continued that. If BR never started it, would the Chiltern be what it is today?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do passengers really want an option of x many operators doing one line, or do they just want a reasonably priced service, on time, decent sock, clean stations and staff around (both on board and station)? We shouldn't need 6 operators on one route to get that. This just seems like a typical Virgin thing to do

 

[The Planner]

Ahem! http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Careers/operational-planner/

A job I'd love to do if it paid a starting salary I could live on.

As much as I would love to comment on that recruitment drive it is probably best that I dont.

 

[yorksrob]

The service on the WCML is light years ahead of what it was in BR days, in terms of all of speed, quality and frequency. InterCity West Coast was terrible; I am old enough to remember it (many on here aren't).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Without higher subsidy we won't get lower walk-up fares, and those are the core offering. I was interested to read on here just how low the profit margin of a TOC is.

Similarly, despite a much higher profit margin, I don't find that monopoly bus companies price-gouge.

You must be travelling on different bus routes than me then, because I frequently find bus fares to be extortionate, even compared to similar distances by train.

 

[greatkingrat]

So they want a situation where the xx00 to Manchester is run by Virgin, the xx20 by First and the xx40 by Abellio?

I can see that working really well :roll:

 

[WatcherZero]

'They' being the Competition and Markets Authority.

 

[andrewkeith5]

Dare I say that the Chiltern began being upgraded by BR/NSE in the 90s and Chiltern continued that. If BR never started it, would the Chiltern be what it is today?

Dare I say that the Chiltern line would have been quite happily turned into a gigantic bus lane under British Rail?

 

[sheff1]

InterCity West Coast was terrible; I am old enough to remember it (many on here aren't).

That is your opinion, but it is not mine. I, too, am old enough to remember it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dare I say that the Chiltern line would have been quite happily turned into a gigantic bus lane under British Rail?

It was suggested as an option in the early 80s, but by the late 80s Network South East had refurbished Marylebone and were working on modernising both the trains and the infrastructure out to Banbury.

Laing Rail and then Arriva/DB have done a lot of good things on that route, but the groundwork was all done by NSE.

As for the original comments, I suspect that this quote:

They argued that revenue growth from the East Coast had been “significantly lower” than other comparable franchises over the past 15 years because of open-access operators.

is more about Stagecoach already getting their excuses in early as to why they shouldn't have to pay the premiums they've promised at East Coast.

What's the betting that the premiums they promised never materialise, yet the passengers end up paying more and getting a worse service than under East Coast? Stagecoach have form in this, leeching hundreds of millions out of DafT in "cap and collar" support, after overbidding to get the SWT and EMT franchises in the first place.

Souter's right, the current model is a shambles, and Stagecoach's business practices prove it.

 

[coppercapped]

That only indicates that the UK had a very low number of passengers before.

Why does it only indicate that? Please show your working.

Switzerland still has way more patronage per capita. That is like saying someone at school improving from a grade E to a grade C is better than someone who always gets an A. And how do you know that rail patronage wouldn't have increased under a different system? London's economy has boomed in the last 20 years and a lot of the rail growth is as a result of that.

If the two countries were similar in size and topography there might be something in what you say. I would point out that Switzerland has a population of some 8 million, about the same as London alone, and is about as big as the old Network SouthEast area. It has quite a high population density, but the population is concentrated in the bottoms of the valleys through the mountains. Travelling by road in winter can be quite tasking. It is surrounded on all sides by other countries with good rail connections and about 22% of its population consists of guest workers - many of whom travel home from time to time by train. This is especially true of those who come from Italy.

The figures you quote are 100% accurate, but because of the significant differences between the countries, leave nobody any the wiser.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact is that "the car" isn't a competitor

It absolutely is. For the vast majority of journeys, other than London commuter ones, the choice is between driving and rail, and maybe for a smaller subset coach and air. Driving has the lion's share of the market, though, and the railways seem often not to be interested in going after it - probably because it requires cheap capacity to be provided rather than price-gouging London-bound passengers (which I guess does back up your other point).

It's worth noting that I do think, away from London, that there is a huge amount of suppressed demand (travelling by car) caused by insufficient capacity and severe overcrowding on routes like TPE - and all that genuinely does need is cheap capacity, i.e. for someone to build a load of new DMUs and get the train lengths up to at least 5-6 car. And TPE may well be interested in going after that, but the Government won't let them, so demand has to be controlled by upping fares.

Though that doesn't apply to Virgin West Coast, which is shipping around a load of fresh air in 11-car Pendolinos while people ram the 4-car LM local services full and standing because of the cheap fares. Were they more balanced, a 4-car set would be totally adequate for Trent Valley local demand alone. In that situation, is it questionable whether the competition is a benefit - if both were at the same fare, the demand would be split more sensibly between them?

 

[yorksrob]

Though that doesn't apply to Virgin West Coast, which is shipping around a load of fresh air in 11-car Pendolinos while people ram the 4-car LM local services full and standing because of the cheap fares. Were they more balanced, a 4-car set would be totally adequate for Trent Valley local demand alone. In that situation, is it questionable whether the competition is a benefit - if both were at the same fare, the demand would be split more sensibly between them?

That's largely the fault of Virgin/Stagecoach's yield management set up. I can't see there being any more incentive to change it were LM services not there.

 

[Class 170101]

Thanks for that, I will tell the other few hundred odd people we can't do our job then....

Who do you suppose currently writes the timetable?

Ahem! http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Careers/operational-planner/

A job I'd love to do if it paid a starting salary I could live on.

Currently train operators write their timetables and then bid them to NR. NR 'referee' the offers and try to come up with a workable timetable merging all the different operators together.

I have been told one TOC had to re-train former NR planners that it took on and secondly apparently NR believes its planners can be trained in six weeks and NR have told us this. I believe NR planners are paid less than TOC planners. The fact I'm still learning things after many years doesn't even come into it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's largely the fault of Virgin/Stagecoach's yield management set up. I can't see there being any more incentive to change it were LM services not there.

VT have no incentive whatsoever to change it, LM or no LM, because its purpose is to maximise revenue, not to maximise bums on seats. They are quite happy to lose passengers to LM if they aren't worth their while carrying them.

The only way to solve that is to write maximum seated occupancy as a requirement in the franchise agreement.

 

[radamfi]

Why does it only indicate that? Please show your working.

OK, it might indicate other things, but clearly if patronage has gone up faster than other European countries, yet usage per capita still lags behind many European countries now, despite containing a megacity where train is generally the only realistic means of transport, means that UK patronage must have been well down compared to other European countries in the mid-90s.

Having a big city is a huge advantage that Switzerland doesn't have. But if Switzerland is too hilly to be comparable, is the Netherlands too flat? They have higher patronage per capita than the UK as well, despite having quite a sparse network with many towns not rail connected. Where a line exists in the Netherlands, it is normally very well used.

 

[Tetchytyke]

VT have no incentive whatsoever to change it, LM or no LM, because its purpose is to maximise revenue, not to maximise bums on seats. They are quite happy to lose passengers to LM if they aren't worth their while carrying them.

...which proves that competition with the car is a fallacy, and the only way to drive down fares is to have competition on the tracks. The popularity of London Midland train services proves that.