East Coast Franchise Pre-Qualification

[LNW-GW Joint]

Mod Note: Split from this thread

Tender for East Coast apparently going to be released today.

Pre-qualification and prospectus, ITT is in February next year. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-east-coast-franchise-competition

8-9 years (with optional 2-year extension)
current routes and stations
"Northern/Transpennine franchise renewal" is one of the key events impacting franchise
branding up to the bidder (but must return to East Coast at the end)
pre-qualifications in by 2 December, short list January, ITT February, tenders back by May, winner in October, start February 2015

the ITT may include either a requirement
or an option for bidders to run services to a number of specific locations in one
or more of the following: Yorkshire, the North East, the Midlands and the
East of England.

Rail North,
the organisation promoting devolution of responsibility for the TransPennine and
Northern franchises to local authorities in the North of England, will be another
important partner, should Government agree to take forward devolution proposals.

 

[YorkshireBear]

What i love is that they have said it will revitalise.... ????

Revitalise what exactly? A perfectly good service?

 

[43074]

The prospectus itself can be downloaded here.

I'm quite interested in the ''innovative timetable'' bidders are going to have to compile - I wonder which new destinations may appear - Middlesbrough? More to Hull? Lincoln? Sheffield or Nottingham to compete with EMT even?

And the new franchisee may be required to adopt the existing East Coast brand in line with the recommendations of the McNulty Report as well. This may not go well with some bidders, cough*Virgin*cough, who have a well established brand image (see page 40 in the prospectus).

I suppose re-privatisation was inevitable, even though I think EC are doing a very good job at the moment. I'm looking forward to IEP, as well.

 

[swt_passenger]

This from the OJEU notice also, again highlighting extra destinations:

The proposed InterCity East Coast franchise will cover the services currently
run by ECML which comprise services connecting London with Yorkshire, the
North East and Scotland, utilising the electrified East Coast Main Line and
routes into Scotland. Bidders may also be asked to run, or have the option to
run, services to up to 5 (five) additional destinations (plus intermediate stops) in
any one or more of the following: Yorkshire, the North East, the Midlands, and
the East of England. The additional destinations will be specified in the ITT.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252824/icec-ojeu.pdf

Might that just be competition for places such as Hull, Sunderland, Bradford, using all those additional Bi-mode IEPs when they eventually enter service?

The potential uses for what are basically a significant number of extra trains compared to the current fleet has been discussed before...

 

[Zoe]

branding up to the bidder (but must return to East Coast at the end)

I don't see any requirement to return to the East Coast brand at the end of the franchise. The document just says that at the end of the franchise, the East Coast brand must be transferred to the successor possibly for them to potentially use at zero cost. If the bidder does rebrand then it must either sell on the new brand at fair market value or incur the cost of removing it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the ITT may include either a requirement
or an option for bidders to run services to a number of specific locations in one
or more of the following: Yorkshire, the North East, the Midlands and the
East of England.

I guess they have to justify buying all those pointless bi-mode IEPs somehow.

And the new franchisee may be required to adopt the existing East Coast brand in line with the recommendations of the McNulty Report as well. This may not go well with some bidders, cough*Virgin*cough, who have a well established brand image (see page 40 in the prospectus).

No, that just says that if a franchisee wants to rebrand, then they have to pay for it

 

[TheWalrus]

Can't they just keep HSTs on for a while longer for the Inverness and Aberdeens instead of bi-mode? Bradford and Hull are covered by Open Access operators now anyway.

 

[Max]

Bradford and Hull are covered by Open Access operators now anyway.

Should this really affect frachised services though? What if Hull Trains or Grand Central were to go bust?

 

[ainsworth74]

Can't they just keep HSTs on for a while longer for the Inverness and Aberdeens instead of bi-mode?

For how much longer? It could be decades before wires make it to Aberdeen and Inverness...

 

[YorkshireBear]

It will be interesting to see what routes they choose, i really wouldn't be surprised to see them try to take on the OAO and also EMT at Nottingham and Sheffield.

Although i think Nottingham and Sheffield will be attractive. Not convinced of the capacity from the junctions at Grantham and Retford to allow these services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If EC offers a service from King's Cross to Sheffield we will be back to alternative routes to London, something BR spent a lot of effort eliminating...
Opens up a lot of other options elsewhere.
I can't remember when Nottingham last had a service to King's Cross.
The theory for both was that it would destroy Midland business, and that any spare capacity on the GN route was better targeted further north.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Stamford anyone ? - large London flow in the peaks ? Just a thought.

 

[WatcherZero]

I love the bit where it says that once TPE electrification is up and running and theres extra TPE services into Leeds, that then East Coast will have to run on time!

Its correct that the franchisee doesnt have to pay to rebrand back to East Coast, only that they have to offer to sell on their new brand to their successor at a fair market value or else pay for it to be removed. If they keep the East Coast brand then they have to sell that on to their successor at potentially zero cost. To reduce disruption bidders will be encouraged to employ a modular approach such that when the end of their franchise is approaching they remove parent company logos while leaving the rest of the brand identity intact.

 

[tbtc]

Hopefully we can avoid this being another IEP thread.

Middlesbrough and Scarborough are simple destinations for East Coast - both could be run as an extension of an existing London - York service (rather than branching off at Grantham to serve Nottingham) so could be run without disadvantaging services to elsewhere. Plus, a bi-hourly London service to these two coastal beautyspots would be a clever political move whilst we see them lose a chunk of their Leeds/ Manchester services when the main Transpennine line is electrified.

Sunderland/ Hull would be a good use of resources in the overall scheme of things, but we get into the problem of Open Access companies having paths for the next few years - there's certainly no long term guarantee of Open Access paths continuing.

Sheffield and Nottingham? Not really convinced. There's an argument for serving places like Worksop I suppose, but we are spending large sums on speeding up the MML to 125mph, and more on electrifying it, so to "steal" a chunk of its revenue. Dunno.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Hopefully we can avoid this being another IEP thread.

Middlesbrough and Scarborough are simple destinations for East Coast - both could be run as an extension of an existing London - York service (rather than branching off at Grantham to serve Nottingham) so could be run without disadvantaging services to elsewhere. Plus, a bi-hourly London service to these two coastal beautyspots would be a clever political move whilst we see them lose a chunk of their Leeds/ Manchester services when the main Transpennine line is electrified.

Sunderland/ Hull would be a good use of resources in the overall scheme of things, but we get into the problem of Open Access companies having paths for the next few years - there's certainly no long term guarantee of Open Access paths continuing.

Sheffield and Nottingham? Not really convinced. There's an argument for serving places like Worksop I suppose, but we are spending large sums on speeding up the MML to 125mph, and more on electrifying it, so to "steal" a chunk of its revenue. Dunno.

Completely agree, but i can see them wanting to try an extract money from these flows as it will be a private company. Cynic in me anyway.

 

[Harlesden]

The prospectus itself can be downloaded here.

I'm quite interested in the ''innovative timetable'' bidders are going to have to compile - I wonder which new destinations may appear - Middlesbrough? More to Hull? Lincoln? Sheffield or Nottingham to compete with EMT even?

And the new franchisee may be required to adopt the existing East Coast brand in line with the recommendations of the McNulty Report as well. This may not go well with some bidders, cough*Virgin*cough, who have a well established brand image (see page 40 in the prospectus).

I suppose re-privatisation was inevitable, even though I think EC are doing a very good job at the moment. I'm looking forward to IEP, as well.

Why not? Virgin might do a good job.

 

[47802]

I think its time standard branding similar to scotrail was adopted rather than the current repainting farce everytime the franshise changes.

 

[tbtc]

I think its time standard branding similar to scotrail was adopted rather than the current repainting farce everytime the franshise changes.

Its a £700,000,000/ year franchise - the cost of some new vinyls for fortysomething trains is pretty minimal

 

[DarloRich]

My views on East Coast re franchising are not suitable for this site. (Please refer to my twitter account for my unfettered comments on this point!)

I am against this action and consider it to be wrong and stupid - That is as far as i am able to go on here!

 

[Stats]

The brochure says that the contract on the 225s expires on 31 March 2015. It goes on to say DfT is considering whether to renew the lease. What alternative do DfT think is available if they don't?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The brochure says that the contract on the 225s expires on 31 March 2015. It goes on to say DfT is considering whether to renew the lease. What alternative do DfT think is available if they don't?

The question is probably how long for?
I should think they want the bidders to say what they want to do with them and then decide.
Even then the DfT might have plans to deploy them (or at least the Mk4 stock) elsewhere.
Maybe they want a better deal from the ROSCO.

 

[route:oxford]

By the time the franchise is awarded, Scotland could well have voted to be an independent country...

If that was the case, what would stop Transport Scotland qualifying for and winning the Franchise?

 

[SkinnyDave]

Oh no Not Independence on this thread
Would take two years after vote so that couldnt happen.

Will Virgin go in for this again? if they lose it a third time then will they take the hint the DFT may not like them (Sarcasm with a hint of seriousness)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

By the time the franchise is awarded, Scotland could well have voted to be an independent country...
If that was the case, what would stop Transport Scotland qualifying for and winning the Franchise?

Too late. The Railways Act won't allow it.
What SNP policy suggests they want to run the EC franchise anyway?
Scotrail is different (but still has to be let to the private sector in 2015, as things stand).

 

[Eagle]

The EC franchise where only 20% of services enter Scotland at all, remember.

 

[asylumxl]

The EC franchise where only 20% of services enter Scotland at all, remember.

Only a fifth of services, providing important links to cities such as Newcastle...

 

[route:oxford]

Too late. The Railways Act won't allow it.
What SNP policy suggests they want to run the EC franchise anyway?
Scotrail is different (but still has to be let to the private sector in 2015, as things stand).

Why does the railways act permit German state railways to operate sevices in England, but wouldn't allow an independent Scottish state transport to operate services in (predominantly) in England?

Seems a bit unfair...

 

[WatcherZero]

Too late. The Railways Act won't allow it.
What SNP policy suggests they want to run the EC franchise anyway?
Scotrail is different (but still has to be let to the private sector in 2015, as things stand).

The SNP have suggested in the past they want to prevent services being operated by 'English' tocs which travel beyond Glasgow/Edinburgh, (backing down over large Scottish public backlash at the possibility of losing direct services and having to change) theyve also hinted they would like control of the Scotland-Manchester route and services between Newcastle and Scotland too as it was 'English' tocs taking 'Scottish' revenue. None of which I think is very likely.

 

[HSTEd]

Why does the railways act permit German state railways to operate sevices in England, but wouldn't allow an independent Scottish state transport to operate services in (predominantly) in England?

Seems a bit unfair...

Because under the glorious SNP 'independence' they will still be under the combined throne.
That makes the Scottish Government an emanation of the Crown, which disqualifies it from operating franchised passenger services under the Railways Act 1993 (as amended)

 

[route:oxford]

Because under the glorious SNP 'independence' they will still be under the combined throne.
That makes the Scottish Government an emanation of the Crown, which disqualifies it from operating franchised passenger services under the Railways Act 1993 (as amended)

And if they ditch monarchy?

The Greens formally voted that an independent Scotland should be a republic.