Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Yesterday, in a parliamentary written reply, Norman Baker, Under-secretary of State for Transport confirmed a fine of ^350,000.

Can anyone find this on the Government website?

Chiltern have welcomed the drop in fine from that proposed, and accept that they broke their franchise rules in 2009.

[paul7575]

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-12/2011-12.pdf

Took a bit of finding - they've rejigged their website...

Paul

[devon_metro]

How is fining a company at all beneficial to passengers? Arriva will only find cost-cutting measures elsewhere to fund this!

[ChrisB]

Not if they want to retain the franchise in 10 years time....

[bobm]

I think it is particularly unfortunate that Chiltern have been fined given all the work they have done (and are continuing to do) improving the infrastructure and services in their area. Bit of a kick in the teeth really.

[ChrisB]

Sorry, but they shouldn't have given their precious WSMR^▸ (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) a raid on their fareboxes @ Banbury & Leamington then.....

[bobm]

I suspect that's what triggered the largest part of the fine but things like a waiting shelter being a month late is hardly the end of the world.

[ChrisB]

No, the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) was using those to cover off the boxes. I reckon the raids / stops were the real reason.

[Steve Bray]

And how did the irregularities come to light? Did any passengers complain? Would the fine have accelerated the decision to withdraw the W&S^▸ (Wrexham and Shropshire (Open Access Operator)) services?

[ChrisB]

Yes, pasengers did complain, I heard, to both the company & the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about).

I suspect the ORR was talking to Chiltern & their owners well before the ORR made it public. The loss of the open stops @ those two stations was probably the final nail in WSMRs^▸ (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) coffin. As the press release stated on closure, the company had been losing over ^1million annually and losing the fairbox money back to Chiltern persuaded all that they were never going to break even without farebox raids *somewhere*

Shame really, but there just wasn't the peak pax from Shropshire to keep it going at that intesity of staff & kit.

Anyone know what's become of the Wrexham depot? Who owns it? Has it reverted to the Welsh Government, who funded it?

[JayMac]

I suspect that's what triggered the largest part of the fine but things like a waiting shelter being a month late is hardly the end of the world.

A bit of consistency from ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)/DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) wouldn't go amiss when it comes to handing out fines for late delivery of franchise commitments. Both Chiltern and CrossCountry have been fined for late delivery of specific commitments. Yet FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have so far escaped any punishment or public censure for failing to meet their franchise commitment deadlines with regard to CIS^▸ (Customer Information System), CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) and PA^▸ (Public Address).

Are First Group just better than DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)/Arriva at keeping the politicians and Sir Humphreys sweet?

No, the ORR was using those to cover off the boxes. I reckon the raids / stops were the real reason.

One assumes that that is personal opinion. Would the ORR/Dft even be allowed to use that reason for a fine? The Railways Act 1993 is the legislation used for such fines and it is unclear from that act that such 'collusion' between operators amounts to a breach of franchise operation. Neither side is saying publicly that Chiltern were fined for allowing it's sister company to abstract revenue.

[ChrisB]

Maybe Chiltern did a deal to achieve a lower charge? The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) certainly hint at that with the PSR^▸ (Permanent Speed Restriction) service being operated by WSMR^▸ (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) being a major part of the fine. Also, the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) refused to allow that to cintine & required Chiltern to go back to limited stops in May11 if they hadn't folded first.

Either way, that would have been the end of the farebox raids, meaning further losses, hence the decision to fold

[paul7575]

When I checked the track access applications a while back I noticed that in the period immediately after the WSMR^▸ (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) 'open calls' it was pretty clear that Chiltern knew they'd made an error.

This paragraph in the 75th supplementary (Mar 2010) for instance, suggests they had already been made aware:

The changes arise from the fact that Chiltern will breach and potentially commit an event of default in its Franchise Agreement if after May 2010 it continues to rely on WSMR services to partially fulfil its PSR^▸ (Permanent Speed Restriction) at Banbury and Leamington Spa. If approved the changes sought by this 75th STAA will enable Chiltern to comply with its PSR without relying on WSMR, and will avoid the risk of breach or default under its Franchise Agreement.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2010/2010.03.26%20chiltern%2075th%20sa%20-%20consultation%20closed%2015%20april%202010/form%2022%2075th%20may%202010%20260310.pdf

[JayMac]

Thank-you for that linked document paul7755. That does rather hint at Chiltern having their wrists slapped for breaching their Passenger Service Requirement.

Still begs the question as to why ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)/DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) didn't include that potential breach in the reasons for issuing the fine to Chiltern.

Smoke and Mirrors......? 

[ChrisB]

Nothing 'potential' about it.

That STAA was correcting the breach that, as the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) states in their documentation, occurred when they introduced a changed leaf-fall TT the autumn before. This STAA was to regularise that position.

So the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) was aware by the time this was submitted, and possibly they requested that Chiltern submit this STAA as they had already been in discussions since Chiltern intro-ed their 'incorrrect' leaf-fall TT?