I think Rhygdaled is referring to this - from
Government Response to the Brown Review of the Rail Franchising Programme (July 2013)
TSGN
1.7 We announced that the competition would resume with a revised ITT▸ to be issued to existing short-listed bidders. The new franchise is planned to start in 2014, and is expected to be more of a management-style contract ^ all as the Review had recommended.
...
Use of management contracts
2.10 The Review considered the case for widespread use of management contracts or operating concessions, where the franchising authority takes the revenue risk rather than the franchisee. The Review rejected this case, but did concede that there may be a better case where a franchisee is facing major and sustained disruption due to infrastructure works. The TSGN franchise was cited as being likely to be most suitable for such an arrangement.
2.11 We broadly accept this recommendation. The presumption is that in normal circumstances the risk around protecting and growing revenue is best left with the franchisee. In the case of the TSGN franchise, we accept that the Government is best placed to take much of the revenue risk given the large scale disruption planned over the next few years. In conjunction with pre-qualified bidders we are currently developing the specification, ITT, evaluation process and franchise agreement documents that will give effect to this revised approach.
But really all these contracts, whether called franchises, direct awards, or whatever, are much more prescriptive than a true franchise. They vary in the amount of profit going to the contractor, but even the "franchises" split that with
DfT» , and I'd be surprised if
TfL» 's contracts don't have a bit of profit or revenue going to the contractor as an incentive.