"Train firms seek longer contracts" (BBC News 30/10/09)

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Train companies have called for longer rail franchises to allow them to provide better quality services. The Association of Train Operating Companies (Atoc) says agreements of 15-20 years would encourage managers to improve services and boost investment. Currently bidders compete for deals typically lasting seven years.

A Department for Transport spokesman said the government was "committed to putting passengers first" when negotiating new franchises. "We are constantly looking at ways to further improve our railways and this includes considering improvements to the rail franchising system," he said.

'Micro-management'

Atoc says longer franchises could attract more private finance into the rail sector as operators would have more time to benefit from investment. The organisation also says longer deals would allow rail managers to focus on improving services for passengers rather than concentrating on bidding for the next franchise.

Atoc also calls for an end to "inappropriate micro-management" by civil servants. It suggests the government should concentrate on the results it wishes to see from franchises, such as improved passenger satisfaction and punctuality, rather than specific details, like the number of ticket machines.

The Atoc report also addresses the risks train companies face in an economic downturn when passenger numbers fall. The government took away the franchise for the East Coast Main Line from National Express when the company made huge losses and failed to convince ministers to revise its terms. Atoc suggests linking franchise payments to GDP output and beginning revenue support earlier in the franchise.

'Passenger satisfaction'

Atoc chief executive Michael Roberts said there was a "window of opportunity" to improve the system. He said: "By implementing a package of focused reforms in time for the next franchises which have to be let, the government can increase the scope for train companies to bring innovation and commercial nous into improving the railways. Equally we would keep the existing mechanisms to deal with any company that fails to perform. Terminating a franchise under our proposals would be no more difficult for a longer franchise than a shorter one."

Rail user groups are calling for passengers' needs to be at the heart of any future changes. Ashwin Kumar, Passenger Focus director, said: "We believe passenger satisfaction targets should be a key part of future franchise contracts as well as a continued focus on improving punctuality."

Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said Atoc's suggestions supported Conservative proposals made earlier this year. She said Conservative plans for longer franchises were "the only credible alternative to Labour's flawed franchising process".

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said train passengers have been getting a "raw deal" from the way franchises have been set up. "We need to grow the railways. Longer franchises will get money into the industry by giving companies an incentive to invest in real, long-term improvements," he said.

[Timmer]

I think its now broadly accepted across the board that longer franchises are the way ahead. Chiltern is a good example of how a longer franchise can work. Short micromanaged franchises are a waste of time and money because of the cost of the franchise process that has to take place every few years.

[Btline]

I agree. Why on Earth was the South Central franchise re-done again this year? It will only last until 2015 or so when Thameslink starts proper. It would have been far better for Govia to have been given an extension without the costs of the bidding. They were doing an excellent job.

Longer franchises are good, i.e. Chiltern, but there must still be a way for the gov to demand that the keys are handed back if their performance is bad/ they remove lots of staff/trains/services.

[ChrisB]

I agree. Why on Earth was the South Central franchise re-done again this year?

To include Gatwick Express?

and the reason for it to go to 2015 is then to include Thameslink....at which point a long franchise might get offered.

[eightf48544]

Longer franchises are good, i.e. Chiltern, but there must still be a way for the gov to demand that the keys are handed back if their performance is bad/ they remove lots of staff/trains/services.

I agree but any longtime franchise must include substantial investment plans by the TOCS.

So for a twenty year FGW^▸ (First Great Western) franchise I would expect more coaches, more trains, e.g. Melksahm at least every 2 hours, redoubling Swindon Kemble as per Chiltern.

If Networkrail/Crossrail is to electrify to at least Reading then the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) could pay for Greenford, Windsor Marlow and Henley branches to be electrified. This would pay for itself with a unified very reliable electric fleet cheaper runing costs. If the TOC were to lose the franchise after this investment then some form of payment could be made to compensate for teh loss.

One thing the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) ought to control is the increase to walk on fares and season ticket fares to Inflation - 1.

All other cheaper fares to be less than walkon with a common universal set of restrictions for non advanced set train tickets. Also to look at cheap last minute walk up fares as I believe  SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) do on TGVs^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) where you can buy tickets for the train in platform from a machine on the platform.

[paul7575]

To include Gatwick Express?

Don't think so, Gatwick express had already been merged into the existing SN franchise by variation procedures a year or so back.

Paul

[JayMac]

....and the reason for it to go to 2015 is then to include Thameslink....at which point a long franchise might get offered.

Lets hope that both Southern and FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) meet their performance targets then, (or both fail - no good if one succeeds and the other doesn't!). Performance related extensions could see both franchises extended to 2017. FCC also have a potential year extra to 2018 at the discretion of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).

[ChrisB]

If one fails & the other succeeds, it'll probably end up being similar to the 'old' FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Thames Trains......and their 'merger', prior to the whole franchise coming up two / three years later.

[paul7575]

I'd agree the franchise dates have to end together, so some possible extensions for performance reasons probably won't be allowed to happen, ie they'll be negotiated away. As pointed out previously, Thameslink key output 2 results in a significant number of existing routes being transferred from the existing Southern and Southeastern franchises to the combined Thameslink and GN areas. 

The fairly recent precedent was the carve up of the former Central/Silverlink areas where various franchise end dates were tweaked so that LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise), EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about), New XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), LO etc were all brought into alignment.  Not forgetting certain former XC routes were landed on TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) and VWC in a fairly sudden manner.

With Thameslink taking on so many existing services I could surmise the current SN and SE franchises even being combined into one, with some self contained London area services being transferred to LO for a later phase of growth.  The Wimbledon - Sutton loop being a good example of the latter, as it isn't going to be part of Thameslink by then.  Of course that is all for a future Thameslink consultation in a few years time...

Paul

[JayMac]

Well if all these franchises come into alignment - maybe add in c2c, NXEA^▸ (National Express East Anglia) and SWT^▸ (South West Trains) when they come up for renewal - can anyone think of a name for this super-franchise? What we will have is a network of lines in the south-east....


(Of course for completeness sake I should include Chiltern in this fantasy super-franchise, but they seem to be doing a good job on their own!)

[ChrisB]

British Rail?

[Btline]

I think that SWT^▸ (South West Trains), SN and SE could be merged into a "Southern" region.

The only loss would be the competition for Chichester commuters, who have seen great improvements in journey time on the Arun Valley line. Basically, many people were driving to Havant onto SWT; so SN cut stops to shorten the journey by about 12 minutes. This is a rare example of where privatisation has worked.

So perhaps a SW and SE region. I think that ALL suburban London routes should become LO, with full Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) validity.

[ChrisB]

I think that ALL suburban London routes should become LO, with full Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) validity.

That will become a reality within a decade, I reckon. Probably sooner.

Later: Oops, read that as all south-of-the-river suburban. Maybe longer for all.

[welshman]

Longer contracts is only half the battle.  ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) have until 2018 but their proposal at the outset to buy 22 new trainsets was turned down by WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about).  Strangely, 22 150s were cascaded from ScotRail instead and they had the new ones.   

This is classic micro-management.  Admittedly ATW is probably more heavily subsidised than any other operator but aren't all those Pacers going to start breaking down in 2012?

[stebbo]

As some of you will have gathered I'm not really left wing, but on this I say bring back British Rail (oh and CEGB and a few others)