Rail franchises operators & contracts

Jimbo   06/02/2017 at 17:49

Wow, what a mishmash of ill-informed and ill-conceived rubbish. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how private companies operate. So they think that more Open Access Operators would be good, even though that reduces profits on the lines they run on. They want longer franchises, just so long as the profits made by the companies aren't too big. They want operators to invest more but at the same time drive down costs. Finally, franchises are not fit for purpose, just look at GTR, even through GTR is a management contract not a franchise. The private sector will do whatever you want them to, as long as it is profitable and not detrimental to their brand. If you ask for more, but give back less, they will leave, which is why most franchises are now run by foreign national railway companies. So what we are getting is nationalised railways again, just being run by foreign governments.

Lutz   06/02/2017 at 18:21

Grandstanding again.

J, Leicester   07/02/2017 at 10:56

Franchising is inherently broken, but it has nothing to do with the length of the contracts but rather the promises made within the tender process. No end of franchises start off with a flurry of new train orders, refurbishment and station investment, which then fizzle out or are left incomplete once the realities of day-to-day operation kick in. It's less noticeable on big, top-link franchises like VTEC, but far more telling where franchises must also incorporate regional and rural services, which bear the brunt of under-investment. Longer franchises would only increase the malaise within the industry - if anything, shorter contracts based on a cycle of a typical rolling stock procurement process would get TOCs to pull their finger out and commit to wider improvements in their second period of tender or risk losing their investment.

Dave Boy   07/02/2017 at 12:56

New trains being offered for new franchises is, in the long term, going to have a massive impact on a whole host of repair and overhaul company's. This isn't being considered. Whilst new trains are good for the big boys, it is not at all good for suppliers and leasing company's. Also not good for the environment having trains lying around doing nothing.

Mulsey   07/02/2017 at 22:51

Weren't longer franchises considered too risky not too long ago (i.e. after the NX East Coast hand back & Virgin/First Group debacle). Where operators could deliberately overstate the longer term revenue streams in order to win the franchise, pocket the early gains and then hand back the franchise when it became unprofitable? May be mistaken, but didn't the Brown report even suggest shorter franchises?

Jerry Alderson   08/02/2017 at 17:34

If we are to have franchises then, in my view, we need continuity. The biggest problem is that they are short term - investment is only done at the front and towards the end disinvestment occurs (such as nort recruiting new drivers). I will sell franchises with automatic extensions indefinitely providing that they deliver. As well as providing a good service, which would need to be measured somehow, they would need to show that are expanding the business i.e. attract more passengers to the railway. Perhaps rather than competitive re-tendering, every 10 years rivals could make a case of why they would do the job better, and that would give the incumbent a chance to up their game. Rather than operators paying premia I would add VAT to train fares, and that would be how the government earned the mone back. Of course, this would need to be introduced in a manner to avoid any 'bill shock' to passengers. Therecould also be a levy of super-normal profits on TOCs, such as the old ITV Levy in the 1960s and 1970s. Only the Scotland and Wales franchises should ever be loss making. The ones in England should be made large enough for cross-subsidy to support the operation.