Rail reforms to be announced

[Railway]

http://rail-news.com/2010/12/07/philip-hammond-set-to-announce-rail-reforms/

 

[tsubaki]

http://rail-news.com/2010/12/07/philip-hammond-set-to-announce-rail-reforms/

Some more detail here:

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/12/hammond-to-chair-hlg-to-drive-down.html

 

[YorkshireBear]

interesting, when today will it come through?

 

[me123]

It does look interesting, and sounds like a step in the right direction. Some franchise holders, such as Virgin, have already expressed an interest in such a proposal. It will encourage investment from the private sector which can only be good for the railways.

But I'm going to wait to hear the announcement before I commit myself to saying "it's good". Such a scheme would need safeguards in place to ensure that a "bad" company doesn't just get handed rail services for 30 years.

 

[tbtc]

It does look interesting, and sounds like a step in the right direction. Some franchise holders, such as Virgin, have already expressed an interest in such a proposal. It will encourage investment from the private sector which can only be good for the railways.

But I'm going to wait to hear the announcement before I commit myself to saying "it's good". Such a scheme would need safeguards in place to ensure that a "bad" company doesn't just get handed rail services for 30 years.

I agree with all of that, especally the last part.

The railways need a long settled period, rather than all the flux we've had in recent years. Tenders long enough to justify investment (not just in new stock, but also to give TOCs incentive to tackle other things like getting Union agreement to work "week-round", investing in more staff/ training and other things which short-term franchises don't want to resolve.

The danger is that whilst some areas may get a "Chiltern" equivalent (positive circle of investment, increased provision, new trains etc), other areas will be stuck with a "Prism" or "Northern Spirit" operator doing the bare minimum.

Whilst I'm a "leftie" politically, I have to be realistic and say that the Co-alition are suggesting bigger realistic improvements than Labour managed to deliver (ignoring the pipe-dreams of Adonis) - credit where it is due, this is the kind of thing the railway has been wanting for a long time.

Here's to stability

 

[YorkshireBear]

only problem is the next west coast franchise will be no longer than and of current ones......

but safeguards need to put in place, minimum investment which are good investment then at thair will but with help and gentle pushes in right direction fi required

some TOC's will eb excellent and wont need any help or safeguard they will do what si best

 

[ANorthernGuard]

only problem is the next west coast franchise will be no longer than and of current ones......

but safeguards need to put in place, minimum investment which are good investment then at thair will but with help and gentle pushes in right direction fi required

some TOC's will eb excellent and wont need any help or safeguard they will do what si best

It would need alot of investment for a company like Northern to get new stock, its a miracle we keep things going as well as we do now, hopefully they will get a new Franchise, they have certainly improved things since Firstgroup had FNW, just look at the state of TPE, I have never seen so many delays and cancellations for what is a cross country service

 

[YorkshireBear]

well i think TPE should be merged with northern...

but i think that is a seperate thread...

 

[tbtc]

well i think TPE should be merged with northern...

but i think that is a seperate thread...

It should, and maybe they'll merge/ amend a few franchise boundaries when this change comes.

Hopefully (if franchises are merged) the powers that be will tackle some of the strange "terms and conditions" that some staff have, and tackle some of the historic "quirks" (meaning we have a chance of a service that can be relied on seven days a week)

 

[Anvil1984]

It'll actually make it worse, as you have more T+Cs to mix into one and Northern haven't been able to do it, then you have to mix in Northern (East), Northern (West) and TPE terms and get everyone to agree to them, which will not happen easily

 

[tbtc]

It'll actually make it worse, as you have more T+Cs to mix into one and Northern haven't been able to do it, then you have to mix in Northern (East), Northern (West) and TPE terms and get everyone to agree to them, which will not happen easily

...but one reason TOCs don't tackle these issues is that they are relatively short contracts, so it's not worth the ball-ache to tackle these long-term things.

Since privatisation most TOCs have "muddled along and made-do" rather than tried to sort some stuff out (I mention the example of getting staff to have Sunday as part of the working week, like many employers do). At the moment it's not worth all the arguing with Unions etc.

One unexpected result of privatisation is that Unions are a lot stronger now, because a seven-year TOC will be too concerned about short term profits and short term "solutions" to eradicate problems. Why rock the boat when you only have a few years of the franchise left? So Unions have been in a strong bargaining position.

A 20-year franchise will mean TOCs have time to resolve problems like the "East vs West" thing on Northern which seems to cause a lot of bitterness amongst staff.

 

[YorkshireBear]

...but one reason TOCs don't tackle these issues is that they are relatively short contracts, so it's not worth the ball-ache to tackle these long-term things.

Since privatisation most TOCs have "muddled along and made-do" rather than tried to sort some stuff out (I mention the example of getting staff to have Sunday as part of the working week, like many employers do). At the moment it's not worth all the arguing with Unions etc.

One unexpected result of privatisation is that Unions are a lot stronger now, because a seven-year TOC will be too concerned about short term profits and short term "solutions" to eradicate problems. Why rock the boat when you only have a few years of the franchise left? So Unions have been in a strong bargaining position.

A 20-year franchise will mean TOCs have time to resolve problems like the "East vs West" thing on Northern which seems to cause a lot of bitterness amongst staff.

what east vs west divide do you refer to never seen or noticed it before?

only thing i can think of is seat reservations, but actually FGW manage :/
wouldnt want to see a pacer on a TPE route either...

 

[Anvil1984]

Tell me about it, its mainly everyone vs Leeds (most of them are alright but theres even a divide in there), the Manchester guys don't seem to mind the other east side depots. I just don't think even over x manys years they will manage to merge the T+Cs at Northern, when you have people on 3% (East), 4% (West) and 6% (TPE). The outside working week arrangement will take a lot to buy off the staff and its up to whoever owns it to pay. Agreed they have more time to do so but I don't think theres a package the majority will take
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

what east vs west divide do you refer to never seen or noticed it before?

only thing i can think of is seat reservations, but actually FGW manage :/
wouldnt want to see a pacer on a TPE route either...

We have ex ATN contracts and ex FNW contracts for guards both with separate terms and conitions

 

[YorkshireBear]

ah... i see that does complicate matters...

 

[LE Greys]

well i think TPE should be merged with northern...

but i think that is a seperate thread...

I'd much rather see it merged with XC and Norwich-Liverpool. They'd need more stock, perhaps Polaris or simply more Voyagers, but it would give the options of 125 mph stock on TPX and 185s replacing 170s. I also think that the mix of routes and destinations would be much more effective than simply strapping it to Northern.

However, I'd still divide Northern up. Part would merge with EC (former GNR and NER lines), part with EMT (former Midland and GCR lines) and part with Virgin (former LNWR, L&Y, North Staffs, M&C and Furness lines).

Maybe we should revive the "what routes would you move" thread.

 

[tbtc]

ah... i see that does complicate matters...

It does in terms of people doing the same job on different sides of t'Pennines, but different Terms & Conditions applying.

I guess it's one thing having better contracts/ terms for "Intercity" franchises than "local" ones (GNER were able to pinch a lot of staff from Northern Spirit a decade ago which caused many driver shortages on "local" trains - it was worth GNER paying bigger wages to get a stable pool of staff)...

...but it causes a lot of grievances amongst the guys at Sheffield Midland etc when people doing the same job in the same TOC are on different rates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The outside working week arrangement will take a lot to buy off the staff and its up to whoever owns it to pay. Agreed they have more time to do so but I don't think theres a package the majority will take

I'd hope it's in everyone's interests to sit down at the start of a 20 year franchise and accept something. Worth all sides making some sacrifices to ensure a stable relationship over the course of a franchise.

I'm probably being naive, but if a long franchise won't sort these things out then nothing will

 

[Anvil1984]

In an ideal world all rail staff would be centrally contracted with Intercity and Regional contracts so they could sign anything that comes in and out of their depot and other work allocated (within the link structure), everyone would be paid the same and the holidays would be the same, butI just can't see a way round it. They could buy our commission off us but the on-board takings will drop as it means nothing to us, there would be a divide and upset if the franchises merged and a current TPE conductor covered a current Northern east side job and got double the commission. You'd also have to hire in extra staff they may have a separate T+Cs that the new company wants to offer.

Logistically I'd separate Northern back into the way it used to be RRNE and RRNW, TPE North goes to RRNE, TPE Cumbria to RRNW, TPE South to EMT. Maybe it should go further and combine RRNE with East Coast, RRNW with West Coast and TPE South with East Midlands. I could go on but I'm sure this isnt the thread. And it still desnt make the staff contracts easier

 

[sprinterguy]

I like the way that the North West and North East local services have been combined into the single Northern franchise: It looks to me that Northern are performing better as a unified whole than the previous North East and North West TOCs did before them, even if it is difficult to eradicate the regional differences and loyalties which have predictably remained.

Splitting Transpennine Express from the local services has helped to raise its’ status as a long distance inter regional operator. I see the current franchise arrangements in the North as one of the most logical possible arrangements. Fragmenting the local train operators back into separate regions, when in reality many overlaps occur, seems a retrograde step to me, although now that there is a single Northern franchise there seems less of a need to keep Transpennine segregated from the local franchise, as TPE is contained entirely within the Northern area.

However, if the local Northern operations were to be once again split up, then I would like to see LE Greys proposals followed up, with North East services joining the East Coast franchise and North West franchises joining the West Coast franchise. It has long been a recognised flaw of rail franchising that the franchises carry different levels of risk and have completely different finance structures as some are Intercity operators and some are solely regional operators: Combining local services with Intercity services, as has already been done with FGW, EMT and NXEA, would be a good move.

Then perhaps the “Alphaline” brand could be resuscitated as a separate franchise, to cover the long distance routes that don’t neatly fit into regional boundaries, and be a franchise based on service purpose rather than geographical area: This could cover TPE North and South as well as Liverpool to Norwich, and perhaps Cardiff to Nottingham and Birmingham to Stansted: It would be good to see a standard level of service, with a standard design of new train introduced on these routes which are all very similar.

 

[cle]

One problem is that regional, long distance (but not true XC) services such as Liverpool - Norwich, Cardiff - Nottingham (I know it is XC-run), Portsmouth - Cardiff, South Wales - Manchester etc... are all used and in some ways seen as more local services also, at their extremities.

If the stopping patterns were changed, and local services improved, they could more easily fit into a TOC - maybe with today's current XC ECML routes too? And then anything WCML could be in a separate TOC?

I did notice that several do originate from Cardiff and environs, perhaps ATW or GWML might run these well?

 

[sprinterguy]

Sounds like a sensible option. I do like the way that services on the core Cheltenham-Derby section of the Crosscountry network have been concentrated with the one operator, as it gives Crosscountry a better mix of service types in its’ franchise, but at the same time I’m not convinced that Crosscountry should be operating services outside of the long distance, true Crosscountry Intercity services: Crosscountry is an odd one out in the franchises as it transcends a lot of other franchise boundaries across Britian. I wouldn’t be too unhappy about seeing Cardiff-Nottingham trains in the hands of FGW. It should at least open up the Gloucester-Derby corridor to competition between operators.

 

[WildNorthlands]

Quite surprised to see people advocating merging Northern with TPE, or doing some other kind of break-up. Both seem to be doing very well at providing a service for people in the north. Why fix it if it aint broke?

 

[sprinterguy]

Quite surprised to see people advocating merging Northern with TPE, or doing some other kind of break-up. Both seem to be doing very well at providing a service for people in the north. Why fix it if it aint broke?

Also a very good point. Which is why in two minds about changing things in the future. Everything seems to be working quite well at the moment concerning the franchises stated above. Like I say, IMO the current situation is one of the most logical arrangements, but if franchises do end up changing in the future, there are ways of doing it that could be satisfactory substitutes.

 

[cuccir]

Quite surprised to see people advocating merging Northern with TPE, or doing some other kind of break-up. Both seem to be doing very well at providing a service for people in the north. Why fix it if it aint broke?

Agreed. Equally, the whole point of franchising was to create competition. Whilst too many franchises fragments and damages the industry, too few would remove competition, which can benefit passengers eg a Preston to Leeds passenger currently benefits from being able to use Northern via Hebden Bridge or TPE via Manchester.

 

[tbtc]

Quite surprised to see people advocating merging Northern with TPE, or doing some other kind of break-up. Both seem to be doing very well at providing a service for people in the north. Why fix it if it aint broke?

Fair point. The only justification for splitting east/west would be integrate them with longer-distance services in that area.

Northern is essentially three franchises - the old FNW, the Tyne/Tees area and the remaining Northern Spirit area. None of the three integrates particularly with the other areas.

There *may* be more benefit in integrating the areas with "Inter City" franchises. For example, EMT running *all* services in its area has meant direct London trains to Lincoln, HSTs being available for Skegness runs on Summer weekends, 222s being tried on the Liverpool service. None of these would likely have happened if Central Trains and Midland Mainline were still about.

Having the "Yorkshire" part of Northern run by the ECML franchise could mean better connections at Doncaster/ York for Hull services, or connections at Darlington for Middlesbrough (to give Middlesbrough a half-hourly service to York - once an hour direct and once an hour changing at Darlo).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed. Equally, the whole point of franchising was to create competition. Whilst too many franchises fragments and damages the industry, too few would remove competition, which can benefit passengers eg a Preston to Leeds passenger currently benefits from being able to use Northern via Hebden Bridge or TPE via Manchester.

There's not a lot of "real" competition between TOCs - most of the "competition" we've had has been with Open Access operators.

Some of the "competition" we've had between TOCs has been pretty wasteful use of resources, e.g. the "five trains an hour from Derby to Birmingham" saga, or arguments about the lowest fares on "TOC-specific" tickets like Cardiff - Swansea

 

[cuccir]

There's not a lot of "real" competition between TOCs - most of the "competition" we've had has been with Open Access operators.

Some of the "competition" we've had between TOCs has been pretty wasteful use of resources, e.g. the "five trains an hour from Derby to Birmingham" saga, or arguments about the lowest fares on "TOC-specific" tickets like Cardiff - Swansea

I grant you that competition is not always beneficial, but to merge Northern and TPE would give one TOC control of (almost) all movement between our Northern towns and cities - the only exceptions would be straight-down the E/WCMLs, eg Newcastle>York or Carlisle>Preston, and one or two XC flows between South Yorkshire and the North East. You'd get fewer and more expensive advance tickets on the TPE routes, and you'd probably see price rises on some of Northern's more rural lines.

 

[DarloRich]

Quite surprised to see people advocating merging Northern with TPE, or doing some other kind of break-up. Both seem to be doing very well at providing a service for people in the north. Why fix it if it aint broke?

Agreed - which is not doubt why it will happen .

BTW - why is it always Network Rail who have to be "nicer" to the TOCs - why not the other way around? Why is everything on thier terms? and done in thier favour (even the awful ones basically get away with it?)

I don’t have a problem with longer term TOC franchises in fact the longer the better as long as the commercial risk is with the TOC, not the government, particularly on rolling stock provision - I do have a problem with private companies owning/running the infrastructure however. I think it is a recipe for disaster (no pun intended) , I think it will bring more, not less, fragmentation, service problems, prioritisation problems, timetabling problems, possession problems etc ad infintium

Ideally, I want one system in public ownership. In the real world that aint going to happen, so lets keep the infrastructure in public hands and let the TOCs run the services.

let them take the commercial risk in return for a much longer franchise, let them set their own service patterns etc ( subject to a social consideration set out by the government) Let them procure their own stock, vehicle maintenance, terms and conditions etc. Let the government provide the infrastructure for them to run their trains.

IF the TOC is delayed because the network is being made better, tough. DHL don’t get a refund from DFT because the M1 is being upgraded, why should DHL rail get a refund because the WCML is being upgraded. If you have a 25 year franchise shut up. It might be bad in years 1 and 2 but not 3-25! You reap the benefit over time.

I would prefer that the Conservatives apologised for the mess their stupid privatisation has caused Labour apoogise for missing the chance to unify the railway as one, and the liberals just apologise!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As a PS:

Are the ultimate customer of the railways not the passengers? (I bet that isnt what Hammond means when he says NR have to be more responsive to their customers. I bet he means the shareholders of the TOCS!)

 

[shinkansen1966]

From what I can see, these rail franchise reforms fail to address one issue. What happens when things go wrong? We've had 15 odd years of rail franchising with many financial mistakes including the WCML, GNER overbidding, NXEC overbidding, Connex SouthEast needing a bail out and a few others.

Either the government makes it clear to the public that any financial failure will be paid by the taxpayer, as now.

Or there should be security against failure with prospective winning bidders lodging much bigger financial deposits or bonds with the DfT.

 

[Zoe]

I'm not sure you can completely blame the TOCs for overbidding, it's one way to make it almost certain you will retain your franchise and is a calculated risk. In the case of FGW things didn't start off well but they were able to turn things round and are not quite a successful TOC. I'd expect to see First retain the frachise next time.

 

[dstrat]

Its simply a joke that a minority of people can profit out of running a public service...nationalise the lot, how it was justified through parliament that TOCs can make hundreds of millions of pounds off the backs of those using public transport so that a few can live the life of riley is unbelievable (of course I lie; its not really unbelieveable when you consider the sentiment in parliament for Thatcherite policy).

It is truly disgusting how some of the absurd 2009 profits for some TOCs can be put down to 'good performance' as opposed to blatant extortion of those who rely on the train service.

Get rid of them, run the service as a not for profit service, reinvest the shedload of money into better/more stock, cheaper fares, fair salaries etc. The whole argument of privatisation of the railways being more efficient and better for the consumer is pure bull**** and doesn't take more than a 5 year old to figure out why. We all know its the more logical option but of course we dont have our fingers dipped in the butter!!