All-purpose franchises vs specialised franchises

[emoaconr]

I was wondering whether, under a privatised railway, which policy seems to have worked better?

• Larger geographic franchises operating solely as regional or inter-city focused (e.g. VT, EC as well as possibly Midland Mainline and Transpennine), or;
• Smaller and more defined franchise areas, operating both regional and inter-city (e.g. GW, EM, GA)

The policy of the government of the day is a big factor here, which has led to different set-ups in various parts of the country. For example, the more geographic all-purpose FNW and ATN were merged and then re-demarcated as regional and inter-city, whilst Wessex and FGW went in the opposite direction to become geographically defined and all purpose.

 

[3141]

I was wondering whether, under a privatised railway, which policy seems to have worked better?

• Larger geographic franchises operating solely as regional or inter-city focused (e.g. VT, EC as well as possibly Midland Mainline and Transpennine), or;
• Smaller and more defined franchise areas, operating both regional and inter-city (e.g. GW, EM, GA)

The policy of the government of the day is a big factor here, which has led to different set-ups in various parts of the country. For example, the more geographic all-purpose FNW and ATN were merged and then re-demarcated as regional and inter-city, whilst Wessex and FGW went in the opposite direction to become geographically defined and all purpose.

I think some of your examples contradict your categories. Midland Mainline became part of a larger franchise, not a smaller one, when it was combined with parts of the former Central Railways to form East Midlands. And I wouldn't describe the Greater Western franchise that's currently operated as GWR as "geographically defined" when compared with Wessex and the other smaller franchises that preceded it.

It was the former Strategic Rail Authority that had the policy of combining franchises with the stated purpose of having only one operator at each main London terminus. They achieved that for Liverpool Street and Paddington, and also at Waterloo where the small number of Wessex services disappeared. I don't think it would have been sensible to try to apply the policy to Kings Cross, St, Pancras or Euston.

 

[squizzler]

I reckon that with railways becoming a more mature industry after the teething troubles with privatisation, the role played by "proper" franchises should be progressively reduced, replaced with more open access operating. Inter city is generally profitable and, whilst exceptions will abound, I think there would be merit in allowing operators to bid for each inter city route, path by path. PTE's and broader areas of social railway will of course need to remain let as franchises, but reducing all the time as growth makes more marginal services profitable and as other more targeted models of subsidising social services come in.

Even in the world of personal consumers, peer to peer sharing is gaining traction. The railway with its ROSCOS, TOC's, infrastructure et.al. anticipated the minimalist living "sharing economy" that us consumers are now doing with our car share schemes, city bike hire. The original privatisation model also anticipated the so-called "gig economy", difference from the "gig economy" that we know being that those doing the gigging (Rosco's) were big firms who can handle themselves.

The downfall of the original privatisation model is that it takes time for the "ecosystem" of rail transport to establish itself. Rome wasn't built in a day, John Major apparently felt that a complex rainforest ecology could be established in a parliamentary term "growing cycle".

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think separating TPE out from Northern was a bad idea. Northern should have been able to have flagship routes to be proud of, and to cross-subsidise some of the basket cases. The split was I think politically motivated to allow cuts to be promoted...that in the end didn't happen.

 

[tbtc]

These things go full circle - we'll go from deciding that small "focussed" franchsies are better, then that it's more efficient to put lots of different services under one franchise.

You can separate the "Cream" into a potentially profitable flagship franchise (TPE) and a dumping ground for no-growth basket case services (Northern). Is it better to have one type of routes cross subsidising the others inside a franchise or have them as two separate franchises (where one pays premium to the Government and the Government subsidises the loss making franchise)?

Putting the Isle Of Wight services into the massive SWT franchise is a good way of hiding them (otherwise they'd be a heavily subsidised TOC with a ridiculously old average age of fleet).

Maybe there are parallels with the Grammar Schools - is it better to separate the top performing services or does that mean other services are "left behind"?

You could certainly argue that the best franchises have been relatively "small" - I'd guess that most lists of TOCs that are popular amongst enthusiasts would include Anglia, GNER and Chiltern. FGE seem to be remembered with a lot of fondness too.

Some of the less-popular ones on the list will probably be TSGN and Central Trains (which seem/seemed too complex to manage).

But NXEC were the same size as GNER. Valley Lines were a pretty terrible franchise. Some other "small" franchises are easily forgotten (would people remember Thames Trains if it weren't for Ladbroke Grove?).

ScotRail seems to work as a large franchise (from the Far North Line to suburban EMUs around Glasgow), without people making the "unfocussed" comments that Northern or TSGN gets.

So it's hard to know what actually works and what was circumstantial (due to the length of the franchise coinciding with fleet replacement) and what is enthusiasts having a penchant for a particular colour scheme/ owner.

Also, there seemed to be little consistency over when local services were dumped in with "InterCity" ones and when they weren't - e.g. EMT was a combination of Midland Mainline and Central Trains services, but the ECML franchise has never been expected to run "Provincial" services - it's been kept as a flagship route without being lumbered running the Sprinters that connect to the InterCity services.

 

[yorkie]

Greater Anglia and Great Western Railway hold connections where practicable, with a focus on avoiding delay to people. I have seen this many times. That is a good thing and should be encouraged.

While I am sure it does sometimes happen, all too often Northern/TPE/VTEC and the like are concerned with avoiding delay to trains, even if the delay they are apparently avoiding is either a few seconds or offers no saving at all (e.g. getting a train away when people are dashing for it, even if that train is about to catch up with a preceding stopping service; yes I've seen that happen!), with little regard to passengers' journeys.

Therefore I'd like to see more GWR/GA type franchises, where it is appropriate and practicable to have them.

 

[sk688]

I still think combining Southern and GatEx , with TL and GN was a terrible idea , although we have to wait till 2018 to see if it was a good move overall

 

[Moonshot]

I still think separating TPE out from Northern was a bad idea. Northern should have been able to have flagship routes to be proud of, and to cross-subsidise some of the basket cases. The split was I think politically motivated to allow cuts to be promoted...that in the end didn't happen.

Judging by the success that TPE has been , I kinda wonder why you think its a bad idea? isnt the current rationale of Northern to also have some premium brand limited stop services with new trains under the Northern Connect Brand?

No matter how you dress it up, there will always be routes which are maintained for political reasons and not commercial ones. Quite how the likes of stations like Clifton, New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar have remained open is a little bewildering to say the least

 

[Bletchleyite]

Judging by the success that TPE has been , I kinda wonder why you think its a bad idea? isnt the current rationale of Northern to also have some premium brand limited stop services with new trains under the Northern Connect Brand?

"New TPE" is looking quite good, but I wouldn't call old TPE a success, I'd call it a disaster of serious overcrowding etc. With a larger fleet a super-Northern would have had a chance to try to mitigate that a bit.

Yes, there will be "Northern Connect" which is a wider recreation of "North West Express" - very welcome, but not the pseudo-IC services TPE will have.

No matter how you dress it up, there will always be routes which are maintained for political reasons and not commercial ones. Quite how the likes of stations like Clifton, New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar have remained open is a little bewildering to say the least

Yes, must admit I don't get those three, and I grew up near them! It's probably just inertia - they don't cost much to serve so they continue to be served. And New Lane has quite high figures because it and starting short are used to avoid evening peak restrictions.

 

[Clip]

"New TPE" is looking quite good, but I wouldn't call old TPE a success, I'd call it a disaster of serious overcrowding etc. With a larger fleet a super-Northern would have had a chance to try to mitigate that a bit.
.

Maybe but you would also have run the risk of them putting any old units on any routes due to any sort of fleet issues so would you really want to traverse from Newcastle to Manchester on any other unit than what TPE use?

Thats the reality of your super Northern franchise.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I still think combining Southern and GatEx , with TL and GN was a terrible idea , although we have to wait till 2018 to see if it was a good move overall

Part of that was because NR wanted to integrate the routes through one ROC - at Three Bridges, which would extend its control up the GN and Midland, strongly linked to Thameslink plans.
I don't know where that plan is these days, with the changing ROC and ETCS situation.

The trend is supposed to towards more/smaller franchises.
But the only sign of it is the proposal to separate out Devon and Cornwall.
Devolution was another driver but seems to have run into treacle after George Osborne's departure.
Matched also by NR devolution of management towards the Routes and with alliances to particular TOCs (eg in Scotland).

This works on self-contained networks, but doesn't solve the problems of managing multi-TOC hubs like Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
You also end up with hybrids like XC with mixed intercity and regional services, and no geographic "home".

 

[glbotu]

I mean, from a purely "business" perspective, focusing on one market per company would be most efficient (division of labour and all that).

So it would seem that having different "types" of service being run by different operators would be a good idea. Given that in general, the railways are looking at being more co-operative, rather than less (as time's gone on, I've certainly noticed more connection holding), the shared use of hubs and railway lines is beginning to seem like less of a problem. This could lead itself to a nice (ish) split by type and vague route. So, Inter City, Regional, Suburban etc. would make more sense, because they both have totally different operating structures and different business goals. Inter City franchises' goal is to get more discretionary trips made by rail, rather than car, regional services are about providing important links between small places and their nearest large employment/commercial/entertainment centres, suburban services are about providing fast links within cities.

The reason the XC Turbostar routes seem so out of place is that they are largely Regional services, which happen to end-on with major cities, so might be able to get a slice of that discretionary pie, which is more a function of scarce rail capacity, not of good business practice. Other considerations which are naturally important are things like staff depots and rail depots, which is why the EMT Norwich - Liverpool is with EMT. To put a German slant on this, I would posit that in Germany, there'd have already been a Neubaustrecke Cambridge - Peterborough - Leicester - Birmingham, allowing regional trains to trundle along the existing lines for local people and proper IC(E) trains to run between the main population centres (noting that while DB operates most services, they are funded totally differently, which is why there are divisions between IC/R/S etc).

 

[Masbroughlad]

I always though that the London terminals, the main lines out of them and connecting services should have been put forward.

For example - Kings Cross to the North as is, but add in Birmingham to Anglia, Nottingham to Skegness, Leeds to Scarborough, Whitby branch etc etc.

Under the old BR intercity brand, Midland Mainline was a profit centre including Cross Country.

Looking at it from another point of view - why not recreate the Big 4 of pre-BR days? Maybe if this had happened, and they were mixed traffic businesses, we may not have seen so much freight and post/parcels traffic lost.

IMHO, the break up of the railway as it was done was way too complicated and too many companies all wanting to make profit.

I cant see things changing for a while. If had a crystal ball, apart from some tinkering at the edges, I see franchises essentially staying in some shape or similar for many years to come.

 

[squizzler]

I mean, from a purely "business" perspective, focusing on one market per company would be most efficient (division of labour and all that).

So it would seem that having different "types" of service being run by different operators would be a good idea. Given that in general, the railways are looking at being more co-operative, rather than less (as time's gone on, I've certainly noticed more connection holding), the shared use of hubs and railway lines is beginning to seem like less of a problem. This could lead itself to a nice (ish) split by type and vague route. So, Inter City, Regional, Suburban etc. would make more sense, because they both have totally different operating structures and different business goals. Inter City franchises' goal is to get more discretionary trips made by rail, rather than car, regional services are about providing important links between small places and their nearest large employment/commercial/entertainment centres, suburban services are about providing fast links within cities.
<snip>

Yes, I think we are coming from roughly the same direction. I think intercity should allow any operator to bid for any path. The concept of an "intercity" franchise might be that operators themselves make up routes on an entirely commercial basis, and that services that fall into the intercity category (speed, distance, service quality) has to adopt an intercity branding in addition to the operator's own label. I seem to recall that Roger Ford of Modern Railways suggested something along these lines a few years back to recreate an intercity brand, but with the flexibility of a commercial market.

Looking at it from another point of view - why not recreate the Big 4 of pre-BR days? Maybe if this had happened, and they were mixed traffic businesses, we may not have seen so much freight and post/parcels traffic lost.

I personally couldn't disagree more. I think that franchising is unsuited to the concept of common carrier railways tied to specific regions. Rather I feel that the emergence of "sharing economy" and "gig economy" the real world has simply caught up with the original privatisation concept of asset-light operators being able to form and disband in response to the whims of the market. As indeed the freight operators still do.

 

[emoaconr]

I think some of your examples contradict your categories. Midland Mainline became part of a larger franchise, not a smaller one, when it was combined with parts of the former Central Railways to form East Midlands. And I wouldn't describe the Greater Western franchise that's currently operated as GWR as "geographically defined" when compared with Wessex and the other smaller franchises that preceded it.

It was the former Strategic Rail Authority that had the policy of combining franchises with the stated purpose of having only one operator at each main London terminus. They achieved that for Liverpool Street and Paddington, and also at Waterloo where the small number of Wessex services disappeared. I don't think it would have been sensible to try to apply the policy to Kings Cross, St, Pancras or Euston.

I see what you mean, and I agree that it is difficult to categorise franchises. I was probably alluding to the fact that EM is (slightly) more geographically defined than CT was, however it has of course gained several routes from elsewhere including MM.

GW definitely has a wider geographical footprint these days, but I think possibly I meant that it shares far fewer routes than it did in the past (i.e. many Wessex services competed with FGW routes). I imagine GW and EM (for example) are fairly similar now in that they both have clearly defined areas (often with little competition), providing both intercity and regional routes.


I guess the split between inter-city and regional franchises itself comes from BR's sectorisation. Whilst it meant for BR that IC would have been the most profitable, RR was significantly subsidied as a result. I guess that was alright back in BR days as they were all part of a single state-run body; where the private sector is involved, the directions of these sectorised franchises (and the finances of their owners) vary immensely.

 

[Senex]

"New TPE" is looking quite good, but I wouldn't call old TPE a success, I'd call it a disaster of serious overcrowding etc. With a larger fleet a super-Northern would have had a chance to try to mitigate that a bit.

I think old TPE was a runaway success in providing a service that has attracted passengers, particularly in meeting on the Manchester-Scotland services a demand that BR had simply chosen toi ignore. The problem lay fair and square with a DfT that didn't allow additional rolling stock to be acquired to meet the needs of all the new passengers. Once more it's an example down to the interference of incompetent covil servants (which of course was also something than BR suffered from).

 

[Great_Western]

Personally, I think the peference to geographically integrated franchises can be a drawback, but so can franchising on service types. It should be done pragmatically on a case by case basis. For example, there is little reason for having the Thames Valley, High Speed and Wessex sectors integrated (Pehaphs with exception of the cotswald line and Cornish Mainline stoppers, But that is not a huge issue), whereas I see little point of Northern and TPE being seperate franchises, as they both serve the same purposes over the same geographical area. Maybe we should go back to the old BR bussiness sectors, with depot's being sub franchised but forced to work together using the same brands (Reggie Rail, Network Southeast, Intericity and so on..). Running the railway more like London run their buses (far more regulation) could even be seen as a sensible alternative to re-nationalisation.

 

[Andyh82]

I never really saw the point of EMT, as there doesn't seem much in common between the MML route and the locals that they gained. I'm sure half the reason was because the EMT locals on their own wouldn't be a big enough operation.

You've then got GWR operating intercity and locals out of Paddington, but the same doesn't happen out of KX or Euston. The same franchise operating VTEC and Great Northern would have made sense, but then definitely wouldn't make sense once the services are diverted via the Thameslink core.

Transpennine Express may have raised the profile of those services but lowered the profile of those services that are almost as fast or direct but were excluded. Northern Connect will improve this, but it will end up with three tiers of local trains across the north.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think old TPE was a runaway success in providing a service that has attracted passengers, particularly in meeting on the Manchester-Scotland services a demand that BR had simply chosen toi ignore.

The Manchester-Scotland service was progressively increased by Virgin CrossCountry and was later passed to TPE. TPE cannot claim the credit for having started it.

 

[HH]

Greater Anglia and Great Western Railway hold connections where practicable, with a focus on avoiding delay to people. I have seen this many times. That is a good thing and should be encouraged.

While I am sure it does sometimes happen, all too often Northern/TPE/VTEC and the like are concerned with avoiding delay to trains, even if the delay they are apparently avoiding is either a few seconds or offers no saving at all (e.g. getting a train away when people are dashing for it, even if that train is about to catch up with a preceding stopping service; yes I've seen that happen!), with little regard to passengers' journeys.

Therefore I'd like to see more GWR/GA type franchises, where it is appropriate and practicable to have them.

If I may, what connects these two are the type of people running them. This also applies to some of the better performing franchises of the past.

I wish i could say that there was one owning group that deliberately appointed these good people, but if I did I'd be lying. It seems to be pot luck, whether you get a Mark Hopwood or a Charles Horton.

 

[Starmill]

Maybe there are parallels with the Grammar Schools - is it better to separate the top performing services or does that mean other services are "left behind"?

I went to a Grammar School that was put into Special Measures and featured teachers injured by thrown chairs, me being hit in the head with a pair of scissors and attacked by another kid using a biscuit tin, having more than one calculator stolen, porn in IT lessons, the occasional theft of teachers phones and a couple of year 11 pregnancies and cases of kids with illegal drugs. I once found a knife. Huge amounts of time were spent telling kids to put their ties on and tuck their shirts in, which was wasted teaching time, and the head had a deeply unhealthy relationship with both his vodka and some of the other staff.

I wonder how standards there compare with any TOC.

 

[HH]

I went to a Grammar School that was put into Special Measures and featured teachers injured by thrown chairs, me being hit in the head with a pair of scissors and attacked by another kid using a biscuit tin, having more than one calculator stolen, porn in IT lessons, the occasional theft of teachers phones and a couple of year 11 pregnancies and cases of kids with illegal drugs. I once found a knife. Huge amounts of time were spent telling kids to put their ties on and tuck their shirts in, which was wasted teaching time, and the head had a deeply unhealthy relationship with both his vodka and some of the other staff.

I wonder how standards there compare with any TOC.

Sounds like GTR.