What is wrong with Northern Rail?

[AndyLandy]

Basically, blame the DFT, not Northern.

That's always been my take on the matter. The Northern franchise really does leave something to be desired, and it's someone's fault. That may not be Serco/Abellio, who are fulfilling the conditions of their contract, but someone somewhere should have included some specification for at least maintaining the stock to an acceptable level.

The only situation I can conceive is that as passenger numbers have grown, Northern have had to try and cater for that additional demand as best they can within their franchise agreement, which means hoovering up as much old stock as they can get their hands on, and maybe not giving the stock the sort of turnaround times needed to keep it in ideal condition. But even that seems a bit far-fetched to me.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That's always been my take on the matter. The Northern franchise really does leave something to be desired, and it's someone's fault. That may not be Serco/Abellio, who are fulfilling the conditions of their contract, but someone somewhere should have included some specification for at least maintaining the stock to an acceptable level.

The only situation I can conceive is that as passenger numbers have grown, Northern have had to try and cater for that additional demand as best they can within their franchise agreement, which means hoovering up as much old stock as they can get their hands on, and maybe not giving the stock the sort of turnaround times needed to keep it in ideal condition. But even that seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Yes it means stock is used more intensively, has less time for maintenance which doesn't help matters at all!

 

[northwichcat]

I think it is because those franchises were let on a growth basis so any passneger number increases haven't meant extra revenue. Northern have benefited from the passenger numbers growth due to no growth franchise. Although I agree northern should try and spend more I can't imaginr the franchise uncertainty is helping matters!

Just to add the figures I gave were the final pre-tax profits of Northern Rail Limited. Anything related to 'revenue share' payments that Northern Rail have to pay back to DfT are deducted before the pre-tax profits are announced.

 

[47802]

Rolling stock reburbishment is a failure of Privatisation, In my view a mininum level of refurb should have been set at various intervals over the lifecycle of the rolling stock and should have been the responsibility of the train owners, say at 10 years intervals with possible exceptions for rolling stock which might be retained for only a short period over the 10 year interval. The TOC's could optional pay for enhancements.

 

[tbtc]

That's always been my take on the matter. The Northern franchise really does leave something to be desired, and it's someone's fault. That may not be Serco/Abellio, who are fulfilling the conditions of their contract, but someone somewhere should have included some specification for at least maintaining the stock to an acceptable level

I can see why people get annoyed, but its all about the contract - look at how good FSR are due to the SQUIRE requirements (which seem really petty in some ways, but ensure that even minor problems are sorted out very quickly).

Give a private company those kind of requirements and you can then blame them for not matching up. Fail to give them strict requirements and you can't expect them to meet them.

One of the ways that third party subcontractors (like Serco) make money is by taking on a contract and then demanding more to do other/ additional things that weren't specified in the contract.

Its a bit like awarding a contract to RyanAir - it all sounds good until you realise that your contract only asked them to run the trains and it'll cost more if you want them to staff the stations or sweep up litter... (removes tongue from cheek)

Those awarding contracts should take greater care.

The only situation I can conceive is that as passenger numbers have grown, Northern have had to try and cater for that additional demand as best they can within their franchise agreement, which means hoovering up as much old stock as they can get their hands on, and maybe not giving the stock the sort of turnaround times needed to keep it in ideal condition. But even that seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Yes it means stock is used more intensively, has less time for maintenance which doesn't help matters at all!

Stock does seem to be used intensively, with little in the way of spare resources - yet they are blamed for putting the cascaded 150s straight into service (rather than spending months upgrading them, despite all of the criticism about "overcrowding).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rolling stock reburbishment is a failure of Privatisation, In my view a mininum level of refurb should have been set at various intervals over the lifecycle of the rolling stock and should have been the responsibility of the train owners, say at 10 years intervals with possible exceptions for rolling stock which might be retained for only a short period over the 10 year interval. The TOC's could optional pay for enhancements.

An important point.

People want Northern to spend money upgrading trains that don't belong to them, on a franchise that they'll only hold for a few more months.

I agree that the ROSCO should pay for this kind of thing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

DafT's contract also doesn't stipulate that Northern Rail should spend a fortune replacing all the vinyls with "a Serco and Abellio joint venture", but Northern Rail did that anyway.

Northern Rail can choose to invest in the stock, or they can choose not to. Many other TOCs have carried out proper refurbishments far in excess of the contractual minimum. Clearly Serco and Abellio have taken the decision that profits for their shareholders and bonuses for their directors are more important than providing trains that are not tatty, filthy and utterly repellent. For that they are responsible.

They're certainly not alone in this, though. Arriva are probably even worse; their CrossCountry trains make Northern's pacers look clean and well looked after.

Northern won't spend money now with their contract up. I don't blame them for that. But- and it's a bloody big but- Serco and Abellio have held this franchise for nearly ten years. In that time they've done nothing to their trains, nothing at all.

I agree that the ROSCO should pay for this kind of thing.

And where the ROSCO has had a decent TOC, they have done, with some of the costs spread over the rental term of the train.

 

[northwichcat]

Basically, blame the DFT, not Northern. Why should a private company spend money upgrading trains that don't belong to them, when they aren't required to?

Given that an improved interior can give passengers the impression that an old train is in fact a new train a decent refurbishment of a fleet of trains it might attract more passengers, which creates more revenue maybe? However, saying that had Northern paid for a decent class 156 refurbishment on their entire fleet could they have done anything to ensure that they could have kept them and not have to cascade a few of them to another operator?

Just as an aside EMT said they spent £10m on the class 158 refurbishment and had a budget of £5m for class 153 and class 156 refurbishments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rolling stock reburbishment is a failure of Privatisation, In my view a mininum level of refurb should have been set at various intervals over the lifecycle of the rolling stock and should have been the responsibility of the train owners, say at 10 years intervals with possible exceptions for rolling stock which might be retained for only a short period over the 10 year interval. The TOC's could optional pay for enhancements.

If the rolling stock owners did pay for full refurbishments it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect train operators to be required to maintain them to a high standard e.g. shampooing the carpets every so often opposed to just hoovering them.

 

[YorkshireBear]

DafT's contract also doesn't stipulate that Northern Rail should spend a fortune replacing all the vinyls with "a Serco and Abellio joint venture", but Northern Rail did that anyway.

:roll:

 

[ANorthernGuard]

DafT's contract also doesn't stipulate that Northern Rail should spend a fortune replacing all the vinyls with "a Serco and Abellio joint venture", but Northern Rail did that anyway.

Northern Rail can choose to invest in the stock, or they can choose not to. Many other TOCs have carried out proper refurbishments far in excess of the contractual minimum. Clearly Serco and Abellio have taken the decision that profits for their shareholders and bonuses for their directors are more important than providing trains that are not tatty, filthy and utterly repellent. For that they are responsible.

They're certainly not alone in this, though. Arriva are probably even worse; their CrossCountry trains make Northern's pacers look clean and well looked after.

Northern won't spend money now with their contract up. I don't blame them for that. But- and it's a bloody big but- Serco and Abellio have held this franchise for nearly ten years. In that time they've done nothing to their trains, nothing at all.



And where the ROSCO has had a decent TOC, they have done, with some of the costs spread over the rental term of the train.

They have gone above and beyond their franchise terms and done a bloody good job with what they have, of course they would not do complete refurbs on units that do not belong to them, that should be down to the ROSCO's why any TOC gets criticised when they don't even own the stock is beyond me. Why don't you blame the real responsible Parties..The Tories and the Banks they are responsible for a lot of this

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But is that the fault of the TOCs or the people who made it private?
And it is all well and good saying TOCs are meant to be this and that. But the government continue to micro manage every decision they make so how are they supposed to make proper decisions?
Like tbtc says, it is the fault of the Dft and ultimately government not the TOCs.

It's end-of-franchise-itis. Quite a number of franchises are in this state.
DfT doesn't know what it wants from Northern for the next few years (or aren't saying), so we just bumble along without any investment.
Northern are just hunkering down with what they've got until they get some direction from DfT.
It's the end-result of the micro-management demanded by the SRA at the start of the current franchise.
In turn this was demanded by the Treasury in case the TOCs ran away with the railway kitty like Network Rail did in CP3.
SWT and Southern both have had proper direction recently, hence the rolling stock upgrades.
EC and FGW have the IEPs to plan for.
Northern have nothing (yet).
One day soon the dam will burst (probably with a large fleet of 319s).
Until then it's keep taking the tablets.

 

[northwichcat]

One day soon the dam will burst (probably with a large fleet of 319s).
Until then it's keep taking the tablets.

Even then Northern will still have an issue if the approach is 319s and the current electrification rate alone are supposed to allow Northern to provide the additional number of carriages required, alongside replacing the life expired diesel stock.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They have gone above and beyond their franchise terms and done a bloody good job with what they have

They've only gone "above and beyond their franchise terms" when someone- usually Yorkshire Forward- has put their hand in their pocket to pay for it. I can't think of a single instance where Northern Rail have done something above and beyond their base franchise terms without demanding a great big bung from a PTE or development company first. They even demanded a large cash figure from GMPTE for using the five 142s that they already had in warm store at Blackpool carriage sidings, for goodness sakes.

As for doing a "bloody good job with what they have", the stuff they have is only so knackered because they haven't spent any money on the stuff. Newton Heath's duck tape is a running joke.

I'm not criticising the staff on the ground for all this- they do go a long way towards making a silk purse from a sow's ear- but the management at Serco and Abellio are only interested in how much money they can make. Why do you think you lost your Christmas bonus last year?

I blame Major for creating a situation where this is allowed to happen, sure, but that doesn't mean Serco and Abellio can shrug their shoulders and say it isn't anything to do with them. They make well north of £20m in profits each and every year, and yet they can't even reupholster a seat properly: sticking some blue fabric on with Velcro (as is the case on the ex-FNW 142s) doesn't count.

 

[northwichcat]

I can't think of a single instance where Northern Rail have done something above and beyond their base franchise terms without demanding a great big bung from a PTE or development company first.

Serco/Abeillo have funded the Bike & Go set up at various Merseyrail and Northern managed stations but they do expect the scheme to be profitable.

 

[tbtc]

They've only gone "above and beyond their franchise terms" when someone- usually Yorkshire Forward- has put their hand in their pocket to pay for it. I can't think of a single instance where Northern Rail have done something above and beyond their base franchise terms without demanding a great big bung from a PTE or development company first

The franchise requires a large subsidy (like Wales & Borders) - which suggests that there's little economic justification for Serco/ Abellio to invest in things.

Would you hire in additional units to run services that you know will loose money (out of the goodness of your own heart)?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Like has been send countless times no company will spend money that they will make a loss on. Northern are never going to finance new trains or fully refurbed because they will not get their money back. No company would.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The franchise requires a large subsidy (like Wales & Borders) - which suggests that there's little economic justification for Serco/ Abellio to invest in things.

Would you hire in additional units to run services that you know will loose money (out of the goodness of your own heart)?

The franchise itself may require subsidy, but Serco and Abellio do very well financially from the franchise. The last accounts show that Northern Rail Holdings Ltd made a pre-tax profit of £29,928,000.00 in their last financial year.

http://www.worksmart.org.uk/company/company.php?id=04007719

You can accuse Northern Rail of many things, but losing money is not one of them. They may look low rent but lets not pretend Serco and Abellio are muddling along on tuppence ha'penny.

Northern Spirit spent a lot of money refurbishing the 142s and 156s and Arriva continued that with the 144s and 153s, not to mention the 37+mKII crowd-buster on the Harrogate Line. If they can do it, I see no reason (other than greed) why Northern cannot. Indeed, the first thing Serco and Abellio did was bin the crowd-buster.

I wouldn't expect any TOC to bring in loss-making services, but I do not agree that running an appropriate number of units for the busiest services is "loss making". Northern has a long and proud history of leaving people behind because they refuse to provide appropriate capacity, especially in Manchester and especially at weekends on the run up to Christmas.

Northern's trains are disgusting because of a ten-year backlog of maintenance and refurbishment. Coincidentally, Serco and Abellio took over the franchise ten years ago.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You can repeat these profits all you want but the simple fact is that why would they throw away profits on upgrades and new trains that would loose them money? What private company is going to do this??????????????? None.

So again we come back to privatisation at fault? And again i ask whose fault is that?

 

[Tetchytyke]

East Midlands Trains did, with the 153s and 156s, neither of which were franchise commitments. So did Arriva Trains Northern; again, their refurbs weren't a franchise commitment.

But then Brian Souter always did understand that if you treat passengers well they come back, and if you treat them badly they don't.

Serco and Abellio well, er, don't. Hence why Northern's trains are vile and Greater Anglia still charge you £5 return to reserve a seat.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So again we come back to privatisation at fault? And again i ask whose fault is that?

BR would just have let them deteriorate, because any money earmarked for stock refurbs would have been spent on a resignalling project somewhere down south.

 

[YorkshireBear]

East Midlands Trains did, with the 153s and 156s, neither of which were franchise commitments. So did Arriva Trains Northern; again, their refurbs weren't a franchise commitment.

But then Brian Souter always did understand that if you treat passengers well they come back, and if you treat them badly they don't.

Serco and Abellio well, er, don't. Hence why Northern's trains are vile and Greater Anglia still charge you £5 return to reserve a seat.

I don't see what your point is? Just because one TOC does does not mean all should. The trains are not vile they are after a friday not, but not under normal circumstances.

They simply are not up to your expectations. I find them fine.

 

[yorksrob]

BR would just have let them deteriorate, because any money earmarked for stock refurbs would have been spent on a resignalling project somewhere down south.

A rather cynical point of view, somewhat undermined by the fact that when BR ceased to exist, most of the trains in question were actually brand spanking new.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They simply are not up to your expectations. I find them fine.

Then you have very low expectations, or you're a manager at Serco

I'm not talking about coke spills and discarded Metros, that's just clutter you get anywhere. I'm talking about the actual fabric of the trains. As I said, last time I was back home in the north east the Heaton 156 had defective heating, a defective water tank (so no toilet facilities on a train from Whitby to Newcastle) and mouldy luggage racks. You can't blame the passengers for any of those things.

That "other TOC" is one that's run by Brian Souter. If he can do it, and do it willingly, then that really completely disproves the argument that the greedy Serco fat cats couldn't. It's about choice, and they'd rather stick their snouts in the trough than offer the service passengers have paid for. I bet Abellio wouldn't dream of putting a Dutch train out in such a vile condition.

The fact that the Northern TOC needs "subsidy", yet makes £30m a year in sweet juicy profit, should tell us all we need to know.

 

[tbtc]

The franchise itself may require subsidy, but Serco and Abellio do very well financially from the franchise. The last accounts show that Northern Rail Holdings Ltd made a pre-tax profit of £29,928,000.00 in their last financial year

The fact that the Northern TOC needs "subsidy", yet makes £30m a year in sweet juicy profit, should tell us all we need to know

It tells us nothing - the fact that the franchise requires a subsidy to operate is wholly seperate from the fact that the company who delivered the "best value" bid have managed to cut costs sufficiently/ increase revenue sufficiently to make a profit on that contract doesn't change the fact that the franchise will always require subsidy.

Do you honestly expect the next operator of the franchise to pay a premium (to run inefficient trains, only able to collect cheap PTE fares on most journeys etc)?

Stagecoach run franchises that require a lot less subsidy (mainly away from PTE areas), so presumably feel that investing in the stock will bring in more revenue than it costs them (since they can charge higher fares).

Stagecoach are also a company more focussed on branding (rightly or wrongly), like the way that they were quick to recover the seats on modern buses inherited from First when they took over some bus garages - they have a focus on branding everything as "Stagecoach" - but that's an internal decision for them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

East Midlands Trains only requires less subsidy because of the InterCity element. The rural trains in Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire require just as much subsidy as Northern's trains do.

East Midlands Trains also run the same stock as Northern: 153, 156 and 158 trains.

I think it comes down, quite simply, to Serco and Abellio taking the view that passengers will turn up and put up with their sub-standard service because they don't have a choice. And in the PTE areas they may have a point. But away from there, with the interurban and rural trains, they're wrong. Running decent trains would probably increase revenue.

I blame DafT for letting such a bargain-basement franchise in the first place, but that doesn't stop me thinking that both Serco and Abellio should never be permitted to have another franchise in the UK again. The way the latter is destroying Greater Anglia demonstrates that; being worse than NatEx is quite some achievement.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

tbtc as far as im aware Stagecoach haven't recovered any former first stock internally? cant think of any scottish based wigan or wirral based stock with new interiors as far as im aware they all retain first spec?

 

[ainsworth74]

I blame DafT for letting such a bargain-basement franchise in the first place, but that doesn't stop me thinking that both Serco and Abellio should never be permitted to have another franchise in the UK again.

You mean the same group responsible for the award winning DLR?

 

[Tetchytyke]

You mean the same group responsible for the award winning DLR?

And the same group who lost the Metrolink concession after three damning RAIB reports relating to track defects.

 

[tbtc]

tbtc as far as im aware Stagecoach haven't recovered any former first stock internally? cant think of any scottish based wigan or wirral based stock with new interiors as far as im aware they all retain first spec?

I've seen reports that the modernish Geminis cascaded from Wigan to Fife have now got Stagecoach seats

 

[ainsworth74]

And the same group who lost the Metrolink concession after three damning RAIB reports relating to track defects.

So, swings and roundabouts then?

 

[Stonesourscotty]

tbtc as far as i can tell off flickr they all still have leather seats