Atomic Systems

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8333171.stm

Train firms seek longer contracts

National Express failed to convince ministers to revise its contract terms
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,

makes sense to me.

It would make sense; after all what benefit is there to ordering trains for a strengthened service when they will end up in service with a new operator due to the franchise termination or the SRA meddling.

Hi
Well apparently it makes little sense to those who actually work on the railways.
ASLEF have already spoken against it.
I would expect other Unions to follow.
Having said that, they are not in support of the whole franchise business.
As they rightly say, there is no real competition, if a whole route is 'sold' to one single company.
Franchises become tired toward the end, longer franchises will just become more tired and for longer.
Cheers
Jon

jbilton wrote: As they rightly say, there is no real competition, if a whole route is 'sold' to one single company.
Franchises become tired toward the end, longer franchises will just become more tired and for longer.

Which is the same as happened with BR.

Personally I believe it is a good idea - it encourages the franchisees to invest early in the franchise to make it look good and then hopefully they'll be in a better position towards the end of a franchise to retain it. Just look at the number of existing franchises that have swapped between operators over the years - not a great deal have stayed with one operator - hardly encouraging investment.

My local (SWT) franchise has issues - who doesnt - but at least over the time period of their earlier franchise they have brought in new cleaner stock and have improved punctuality (at the expense of timetabled journey times mind) - I've not got any major issues following the refranchising that took place recently - maybe some of the trains do need a refurb, but that's to be expected - they are generally in a better condition than the alternatives (FGW).

Hi
At the time of privatisation BR was a roaring success.
It had finally cleared the massive debts it had been saddled with from day one.
Perhaps if it hadn't been, it would not have been sold off.
Why no one will admit the 'experiment' failed, and re-nationalise I don't know.
The railways have never survived and prospered in private hands, since around the 1890s.
However I agree that the franchise system is doomed to failure, because there is no encouragement to invest.
No single company can afford to invest in research either, so if they buy anything its a few 'off the shelf' foreign built stock.
Which just about fits the requirement.
Plus there's no spare capacity...... which leads to over crowding.
Finally the good old tax payer is still saddled with the really expensive bit... all the infrastructure.
Cheers
Jon

Can't really fault National Express and c2c. They've done a fantastic job on the line from its sorry state over 10 years ago and actually i would be happy for NatEx for keep c2c, and actually the Thameside franchise was awarded for 15 years so longer term franchises do work - granted it is a small one operator line thats very peaky internsive but still - point still stands .

Cheers

PT

The main problem I can see with the idea is a political one, seeing as the franchises will always suffer from DfT meddling. And that is that a franchise will last 3-4 governments or more, each bringing in their own transport policies, and may wish to overturn conditions of franchises set up under previous governments. The risk is that you end up with a government forcing an operator out of a franchise before it was due as part of a wider transport policy. If this happens, it would put off investors from the UK rail market.

Of course, fewer interfering politicians may also be a good thing, but they're much harder to control.

I actually think it would be better if operators were allowed to buy rolling stock, rather than just lease what the DfT says they should. And maybe if they had greater influence over infrastructure, if not ownership. Some of the franchise boundaries might also usefully be restructured.

AN

The reason why the railways are not re-nationalised is because it would cost a fortune to unravel the structure put in place.

Regards,

Dan

Gerard Fiennes raised a similar point about government interference in his 1973 book "I Tried To Run A Railway". If the politicians would only leave running of railways to railwaymen instead of treating the whole thing as their own giant train set, we might have a lot less trouble than we have had over the years. Historically the railways did a sterling job until the government took them over for the duration of the Great War, ran them in to the ground and handed them back in such as state that nobody could reasonably make them work properly. They then rationalised the hundred odd railway companies into four - and promptly did the same thing in the Second World War. The only solution then was to nationalise the whole shebang - but they still insisted on interfering, reorganising and generally messing it all up. Since privatisation we have had investment in new rolling stock, track improvements and service improvements where the TOCs can see a reasonable return on their investment. Passenger satisfaction ratings are much higher on those services where the TOCs have longer franchises, because the TOC see a better chance of a return on their investment and the staff can see some sort of stability so they develop a loyalty to the line, the service and the travellers. The big political error was trying to treat the exercise as an auction, causing some operators to overbid to a level that made economic operation unrealistic. Those who have not made such unrealistic bids have had the spare cash to reinvest to improve services.
We will always have better railway when the politicians stick to politics and let the railwaymen stick to running railways!

thenudehamster wrote:. Historically the railways did a sterling job until the government took them over for the duration of the Great War, ran them in to the ground and handed them back in such as state that nobody could reasonably make them work properly. They then rationalised the hundred odd railway companies into four - and promptly did the same thing in the Second World War. The only solution then was to nationalise the whole shebang - but they still insisted on interfering, reorganising and generally messing it all up.

Hi Barry
I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on that point...... the Railways began to loose money since around the 1890's.
No private company has ever really been successful.
BR was successful, and making huge profits by the mid 1990's.
Even after they had been saddled with the enormous debts, to pay off the greedy railway company shareholders.
Cheers
Jon

Pyromaniac wrote:Can't really fault National Express and c2c. They've done a fantastic job on the line from its sorry state over 10 years ago and actually i would be happy for NatEx for keep c2c, and actually the Thameside franchise was awarded for 15 years so longer term franchises do work - granted it is a small one operator line thats very peaky internsive but still - point still stands .

Cheers

PT

Chiltern's performance is none too shabby either - 20 year franchise. They've invested far more, for the size of the operation, than TOCs with shorter franchises. Longer seems better to me.

Andy L

gswindale wrote: My local (SWT) franchise has issues - who doesnt - but at least over the time period of their earlier franchise they have brought in new cleaner stock and have improved punctuality (at the expense of timetabled journey times mind) - I've not got any major issues following the refranchising that took place recently - maybe some of the trains do need a refurb, but that's to be expected - they are generally in a better condition than the alternatives (FGW).

Fair point but that is one major problem when I am at home in Woking. The choice - SWT, SWT or oh, SWT again. I remember when I was younger we used to get a Basingstoke-Colchester/Ipswich and a Waterloo-Manchester I believe but now it's just SWT so we get no competition. It is much better being at uni in Sheffield as there are many operators operating many different routes, and quite a few operate the same routes as well (i.e. EMT and FTPE to Manchester or Northern, XC and FTPE to Doncaster etc etc.)

Glenn