Great Western Franchise Consultation

[whole diary]

[Southern Stag]

Like with Virgin when negotiating their extension the ball is very much in First Groups court and they are unlikely to enter into a new contract with the originally contracted franchise payments.

[paul7575]

Southern have recently launched a procurement for new 110mph EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) on behalf of DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about), though they won't be used on Southern services.  It's quite likely that they with either end up on GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), or alternatively be used on Thameslink services to enable the cascade of 319s to happen in time for Western and North Western electrification.

Im aware of all that, the point is that the changed dates will almost certainly mean that the decision on the new EMUs is being taken away from the future TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company).  As things stood, it was going to be up to the incoming (next) GW^▸ (Great Western) TOC to sort out suitable EMU stock - with various options being mentioned in the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender).  As it now turns out, the next TOC will probably take over with a fait accompli in place, inspired by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) - and that is contrary to their recent policy statements.

Paul

[ChrisB]

Seeing as its likely to be a management contract, rather than a full franchise while all the work is going on - that's a likely outcome.

Paul Clifton, BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) South Transport correspondent tweets -

First Great Western hands back franchise 3 years early as it can't balance books. Now DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) gives it 2.5 yrs with ^500m lower payments.

[ChrisB]

Paul Clifton reckons FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't run the contract without ^100m per year in Revenue Support to stay afloat - no wonder they handed the keys back as soon as they could!

However, if this is the case, what would the point of offering them a 2-year extension be, rather than give the operation to Directly OPerated Railways, and let them spend this money directly? THe staff would TUPE^▸ (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.) across, so no loss of key staff, and who would presumably TUPE again to whoever wins the eventual new franchise...seems a waste of taxpayer money to spend this money AND more in order for FGW to earn at least 1% of revenue as profit (which I believe is what Virgin are doing).

Just seems a waste of taxpayer monety to me. What is 1% of FGW revenue?

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Chris - its politics steering the decisions not economics or common sense. To give GW^▸ (Great Western) to D.O.R. to run for two years would be an absolute last resort for a tory government that must for its own political agenda try to make the most of its diusastrous privatisation policy. It justs leaves us as taxpayers to pay more for the tory phiosophy.

[Thatcham Crossing]

....not forgetting of course that the Labour Party did nothing to try and re-nationalise during their 13 year tenure 

[ellendune]

And that setting up another Directly Operated Railways management team in a short time to take over for 2 years and getting all the safety case approved wouldn't be done overnight or without some considerable expense.  It may actually be cheaper to pay FGW^▸ (First Great Western) if they can get the right price.

[Andy W]

And that setting up another Directly Operated Railways management team in a short time to take over for 2 years and getting all the safety case approved wouldn't be done overnight or without some considerable expense.  It may actually be cheaper to pay FGW^▸ (First Great Western) if they can get the right price.

given all the staff are TUPE^▸ (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.)'ed exactly what is the safety case that needs approval. A pointer o the relevant document would be appreciated.

[thetrout]

I'm in agreement with pretty much everything there Gents.

I think as FirstGroup were intending to hand back the keys hence why a new ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) and Bidding Process was drawn up, then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to run the franchise on better terms.

I'm trying to get my head around what the Government is trying to achieve here. Whilst in one way I think it was good that the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) Blunder was exposed. I think given the fact that FG were going to "risk" handing back GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and winning again, but wanted WCML regardless (AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) they were always preferred bidder).

Perhaps the government should pursue the DoR route. But the cynic in me seems to think that the government is going with the easiest option at the present time just to quickly move on based on the amount of grief the blunder has caused them. Which as I am sure we are all aware, may not be the best one in 2.5 years time. Nor may it be the cheapest in 2.5 Years Time, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) may end up handing back the keys anyway.

Like I have said in the past, as long as I don't ever see "Arriva Great Western" on the side of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) I am about to catch. Knowing how dreadful CrossCountry were when they first started their operations. I'll be happy for now!

[JayMac]

Why would Arriva Great Western necessarily be a bad thing? The parent company, Deutsche Bahn, knows a thing or two about passenger railways and sister company Chiltern are often lauded as one of the better TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company). Their joint venture at London Overground is also winning many plaudits.

[ellendune]

And that setting up another Directly Operated Railways management team in a short time to take over for 2 years and getting all the safety case approved wouldn't be done overnight or without some considerable expense.  It may actually be cheaper to pay FGW^▸ (First Great Western) if they can get the right price.

given all the staff are TUPE^▸ (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.)'ed exactly what is the safety case that needs approval. A pointer o the relevant document would be appreciated.

Perhaps someone else could provide reference, but as I understand it the senior management team are not TUPE'ed and so Directly Operated Railways would have to find senior managers with the right experience.  Also as I understand it the senior managers are named on the Safety Case and if you have an entirely new senior management then you need a new safety case.  Happy to be corrected if I am wrong. 

[Trowres]

Not really contradicting what you have said, ellendune, but rent-a-manager exists, for example as First Class Partnerships (nothing to do with First Group).

On behalf of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Government, FCP provided an executive management team which took over the franchise when incumbent Connex ran into financial difficulties. Following a seamless transition, operational and financial performance improved against all key indicators[/quote

FCP provided at short notice experienced senior management team to support DOR in preparations to take over the West Coast franchise, after the award process was cancelled by Government due to bid irregularities. Although the Virgin Trains franchise has since been extended, DOR with FCP provided Government with a stronger negotiating position

I am not intending this to be a recommendation for FCP.

[ellendune]

I know it can be done, just that it does not come without a significant cost! Whenever you get contract staff rather than an employee you always end up paying more. Whether it is a computer programmer or a railway senior manager.

[Southern Stag]

DOR was mooted for the West Coast route but the option was discounted because the safety case couldn't be sorted out in time. DOR would need to find a senior management team as well, and considering the disruption likely to the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) franchise over the coming years they'd probably want an experienced team, so it may not be easy to find the right people. Transferring to DOR for 2 years would be expensive as well as everything would have to be re-branded twice in a short period of time, if DOR took over the franchise isn't going to be called First Great Western. This is also a completely different use of DOR, it's an operator of last resort, but there are other options available to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) here.

[Network SouthEast]

I've read in the industry press that the two main reasons were safety case, as mentioned above, but also that DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) can't realistically find TWO new senior management teams in short time. It's not just about GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), but WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) - there is a worry that if DfT did not treat both franchises in the same way then one might make a legal challenge on the way the other was handled.

The other issue to consider is that nobody actually knows what (if anything) First are actually being paid to manage the extension. They might only be on a peppercorn rate.