Combined Intercity Franchise

[sulli_os]

With all the talk of merging Northern/TPE franchises and the different ways of doing so, I was thinking...

Would it be better to have a single InterCity operator? A combined InterCity franchise would include ECML, WCML, the intercity services from XC, GWML, etc, etc. Then distribute the regional franchises across the country.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would it be better to have a single InterCity operator?

It's a good idea in principle. But, that would be a monstrous undertaking for a single private company, which would be so large there may be problems with investment. How would it work exactly?

 

[radamfi]

It's a good idea in principle. But, that would be a monstrous undertaking for a single private company, which would be so large there may be problems with investment. How would it work exactly?

How does any large private company work? Large companies typically split themselves into more manageable divisions.

 

[N Levers]

Would it be better to have a single InterCity operator? A combined InterCity franchise would include ECML, WCML, the intercity services from XC, GWML, etc, etc. Then distribute the regional franchises across the country.

No.

Taking GWML as an example you would be left with all the west country local services with would need HEAVY subsidising.

 

[MCR247]

The great thing about having big franchises is that services that are very profitable can subsidise ones that can only just break even

 

[Failed Unit]

To be honest there are pro's and cons. Look at the HST replacement if there was one large IC franchise you would get a good economy of scale, you could share sets etc. However Great Western has little in common with east coast.

I think I would prefer regional franchises where the IC operator covers the feeders like great western is now. It means that the IC has in interest in the branch line.

East coast for example would have Lincolnshire, northerns Newcastle and Neville Hill based services etc. West Coast would have Tyseley, Newton Heath etc.

The trouble is of course what happens to east west flows, enlarged cross county perhaps taking in TPE, Norwich - Liverpool and Blackpool - York?

 

[Zoe]

Does intercity even need to be franchised? Couldn't it be run on a fully commercial basis with companies simply bidding for paths? It's all very well saying that profits from intercity services should be used to pay for regional services but this can result in higher fares for intercity journeys as the TOC still needs to make a profit.

 

[WatcherZero]

There needs to be at least two intercity franchises to provide long distance competition, they compete on the longer distance inter-regional side of the journey while the other franchises compete with them on the shorter side to specific destinations.

Reason for franchised operators over franchised services is you need station staff, cleaning crews, replacement services, etc... Could you imagine turning up with a Toc A ticket but the service is cancelled so you have to wait three hours for the next Toc A service and meanwhile theres two Toc B and a Toc C service you could have used? I.e. Airline

 

[tbtc]

To be honest there are pro's and cons. Look at the HST replacement if there was one large IC franchise you would get a good economy of scale, you could share sets etc. However Great Western has little in common with east coast.

I think I would prefer regional franchises where the IC operator covers the feeders like great western is now. It means that the IC has in interest in the branch line.

East coast for example would have Lincolnshire, northerns Newcastle and Neville Hill based services etc. West Coast would have Tyseley, Newton Heath etc.

The trouble is of course what happens to east west flows, enlarged cross county perhaps taking in TPE, Norwich - Liverpool and Blackpool - York?

I agree with all of this; a combined operator in a region (London and Local) means better co-ordination of services, means any profits are used to cover unprofitable services, it seemed to work okay for LNER etc...

The point about "east-west" services is a good one, I admit that fitting XC/ TPE (etc) into my "map" is tricky

 

[Zoe]

I agree with all of this; a combined operator in a region (London and Local) means better co-ordination of services, means any profits are used to cover unprofitable services

The issue with that though is that private companies would likely prefer to keep the profit for their shareholders than use it to pay for unprofitable services. If they are mandated to do this then fares on the intercity services will likely be higher.

 

[route:oxford]

What might be more interesting woudl be to change the franchise structure a little.

Create "New XC Ltd" in which there are 3 "golden" shares. Next time it is up for review - Allocate one share each to the holder of the GW, WC & EC franchises.

That might help with the planning of stock and services.

Or might be a total disaster...

 

[Zoe]

Create "New XC Ltd" in which there are 3 "golden" shares. Next time it is up for review - Allocate one share each to the holder of the GW, WC & EC franchises.

Not a bad idea. Another option would be to simply require FGW, East Coast, Virgin and East Midlands Trains to jointly run the service. For example FGW crew would be used from Plymouth to Birmingham, East Midlands Trains from Birmingham to York and East Coast from York to Edinburgh.

 

[MCR247]

But you'd effectively be getting an 'XC' crew to sign it between BHM & YRK as EMT don't sign that

 

[Zoe]

But you'd effectively be getting an 'XC' crew to sign it between BHM & YRK as EMT don't sign that

The point is that the operation of the service between Birmingham and York would become the responsibility of East Midlands Trains.

 

[TUC]

With all the talk of merging Northern/TPE franchises and the different ways of doing so, I was thinking...

Would it be better to have a single InterCity operator? A combined InterCity franchise would include ECML, WCML, the intercity services from XC, GWML, etc, etc. Then distribute the regional franchises across the country.

What advantage would there be for passengers? No competition or incentive to lower fares. It would be the worst possible way forward.

 

[tbtc]

The issue with that though is that private companies would likely prefer to keep the profit for their shareholders than use it to pay for unprofitable services. If they are mandated to do this then fares on the intercity services will likely be higher.

Look at how ScotRail and FGW generally work well.

Look at the mess in Lincolnshire where the "local" TOC (EMT) don't connect with the "London" TOC (East Coast) - and previously GNER used to run connecting buses rather than expect their passengers to use the local train service.

If you give TOCs a minimum service level then their franchise bid reflects the need to cover these. I don't think this'd affect "London" ticket prices, because they'd still need to be competetive (regardless of who ran the "local" trains

 

[Zoe]

FGW does work well but some of their walk-up intercity fares are very expensive even Off Peak. If FGW didn't have to use profit to pay for local services then maybe the fares wouldn't be so expensive. One of the first things they did at the start of the franchise was scrap the Super Saver. A new Super Off Peak fares was then introduced at the old Off Peak rate and Off Peak then hiked by about 20 percent. FGW did reduce many Cheap Day Retrun fares in Devon and Cornwall though but clearly something had to pay for this.

 

[tbtc]

If FGW didn't have to use profit to pay for local services then maybe the fares wouldn't be so expensive

...but then if GW didn't operate those local services then maybe thy'd have had to pay a higher premium (or lower subsidy) for the franchise, then the Government would have had to use that money to subsidise the "Wessex" franchise, plus the costs of setting up an alternative franchise (with all the inefficiencies of running a small franchise, layers of management etc).

Which is more efficient - FGW cross subsidising the "local" lines with the profits from the "London" lines, or FGW paying a higher premium to the Government, the Government passing that money on to a new franchise (with all the costs of setting that up)?

 

[Jonny]

It's a good idea in principle. But, that would be a monstrous undertaking for a single private company, which would be so large there may be problems with investment. How would it work exactly?

Like Intercity Limited in the days of BR sectors.

 

[TUC]

If having no competition and no profit incentive was so great then you would have expected British Rail to have surpassed the TOCs in the range of services offered but take two examples from the north east.

There were no Sunday morning east coast mainline services under BR (and I remember people who had tried to book a journey for that time of day expressing amazement that there was no service). Now there is a full Sunday morning service.

British Rail had gradually reduced their Sunderland-Middlesbrough-London service to extinction, claiiming its wasn't financially viable but now we have Grand Central running a higher level of service than BR ever did.

How would a single Inter City franchise have had any incentive to offer either of these?

 

[Jonny]

FGW does work well but some of their walk-up intercity fares are very expensive even Off Peak. If FGW didn't have to use profit to pay for local services then maybe the fares wouldn't be so expensive. One of the first things they did at the start of the franchise was scrap the Super Saver. A new Super Off Peak fares was then introduced at the old Off Peak rate and Off Peak then hiked by about 20 percent. FGW did reduce many Cheap Day Retrun fares in Devon and Cornwall though but clearly something had to pay for this.

If FGW was going to do that, they might as well use the local services as part of a cross-marketing scheme. The problem is, as a bus company, there is a disincentive to speed up their local services (new or improved lines) as either they would erode their own buses or if they 'hit' a rival's, their bus operations might end up on the tail-end of retaliation.

 

[Zoe]

Rail use was in decline at the time, there wasn't the same demand for services there is now. Since then the cost of other modes of transport has become more expensive and there has been a shift to rail and so more demand for services.

 

[Failed Unit]

What advantage would there be for passengers? No competition or incentive to lower fares. It would be the worst possible way forward.

But in reality there is very little rail on rail competition, if you want to get to London from Newcastle, bristol, Cardiff, Ashford, Bournemouth, Manchester or derby the only competition is provided by other transport modes not other TOCs. In some areas such as Lincolnshire you have a choice between stagecoach rail, stagecoach buses or private car. People who have a choice of operator are the minority.

 

[Zoe]

In some areas such as Lincolnshire you have a choice between stagecoach rail, stagecoach buses or private car. People who have a choice of operator are the minority.

So why not have intercity run on a fully commercial basis then where the companies bid for paths with regulation to prevent all the paths going to a single company?

 

[Jonny]

If having no competition and no profit incentive was so great then you would have expected British Rail to have surpassed the TOCs in the range of services offered but take two examples from the north east.

There were no Sunday morning east coast mainline services under BR (and I remember people who had tried to book a journey for that time of day expressing amazement that there was no service). Now there is a full Sunday morning service.

British Rail had gradually reduced their Sunderland-Middlesbrough-London service to extinction, claiiming its wasn't financially viable but now we have Grand Central running a higher level of service than BR ever did.

How would a single Inter City franchise have had any incentive to offer either of these?

I can't comment about ECML Sundays but as for Grand Central it is operating at a massive discount; Sunderland is like a living graveyard (a bunch of thugs, scallys (just outside the charver zone) and so on) and the problem with Middlesborough is that both heads have to agree to a trip to York, let alone London.(LOL).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rail use was in decline at the time, there wasn't the same demand for services there is now. Since then the cost of other modes of transport has become more expensive and there has been a shift to rail and so more demand for services.

With the speed of some branch lines, their usefulness was/is rather limited other than as a connection to the main line. Hence the need to improve infrastructure to increase speed (or see what the current infrastructure can safely take, especially with split limits for DMUs etc.).

 

[Failed Unit]

So why not have intercity run on a fully commercial basis then where the companies bid for paths with regulation to prevent all the paths going to a single company?

To be honest that wouldn't bother me as long as I could buy a ticket for any operator between London and Edinburgh. Ie the super-off peak etc remains inter available.

 

[Zoe]

To be honest that wouldn't bother me as long as I could buy a ticket for any operator between London and Edinburgh. Ie the super-off peak etc remains inter available.

That is where the difficulty would be as who would set the fares? If you fly to the US with Virgin Atlatnic you can't expect to return with BA on the same ticket can you? One option here would be to scrap return fares so you would buy a single before you travel on each train. In the future smartcard technology may help here as you could be billed for actual journeys on each train.

 

[185]

All about cherry picking. Operators should not be allowed to just operate solely profitable express francises, but should have to do a mix of the two.

Despite this, one greedy trashbag intercity-only franchise still wouldn't run some services and chose to put a bus on even when the line was open.

See, I didn't mention which one.

 

[Failed Unit]

If having no competition and no profit incentive was so great then you would have expected British Rail to have surpassed the TOCs in the range of services offered but take two examples from the north east.

There were no Sunday morning east coast mainline services under BR (and I remember people who had tried to book a journey for that time of day expressing amazement that there was no service). Now there is a full Sunday morning service.

British Rail had gradually reduced their Sunderland-Middlesbrough-London service to extinction, claiiming its wasn't financially viable but now we have Grand Central running a higher level of service than BR ever did.

How would a single Inter City franchise have had any incentive to offer either of these?

Open access will still happen irrespective of who runs or how many franchises exist. To be fair BR did develop many flows in the day that no private operator would have. Most of the regional express network for example. Would Cleethorpes - Manchester exist if privatisation happened in 1989? BR created routes such as Newcastle - Glasgow by just sending a unit that bit further and could do once a day specials like Cardiff - Cleethorpes. Remember Inverness - London exists to use a HST that otherwise would be doing nothing.

BR ran down many services in the early 1990s but did develop a lot in the late 1980s

 

[Zoe]

Outside of London bus operators are free to run the services they want to, they are not forced to use their profits to pay for unprofitable services.