Anger at plans to Axe rail Coaches in the South West

ianmacmillan · Post by **ianmacmillan** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:57 pm

I always thought that a bid for a franchise meant running the timetable that was in existance when the contract was agreed.

These bus companies were quite happy to rake in the money when they were subsidised.
Now they are bleating when the subsidy is reduced.

They sould be forced to run the service until they are bankrupt. Then the goverment should take back ALL the franchises they own and run them a lot cheeper since they don't have to give most of the money to shareholders.

Who's side are the goverment on anyway.

or have the boses slipped a few millions to the labour party?

enotayokel · Post by **enotayokel** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:36 pm

What makes you think the government would do a better job? Going on past form

Other countries seem to manage with a mix of Government and Private companies, the Swiss especially so.

I think the Swiss Goverment has a stake in private railways, I know when SBB sold the Brunigbahn to the LSE* (a mini Privatisation) the Government kept a stake in the new Zentralbahn.

*LSE - Luzern Stans Engelberg bahn, operates over the Lurzern end of the Brunig line

skipperdipper · Post by **skipperdipper** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:03 pm

I just thought, since the 180's are identicles to the 175's (apart from being 25mph faster), why can't they move to Chester depot and run Holyhead-Crewe services? This would release 175's for Cardiff-Holyhead working which could become 3-car, replacing 158's on the odd turn which could strengthen other services.

Rob

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Ian - Brilliant plan, if you wish to destroy the railways, and quite possibly the rest of the economy. The franchises were always let on the basis of a dwindling subsidy profile eventually leading to premium payments for the most profitable - hence GNER and Thameslink are premium payers, and Thames Trains was (until First got hold of it). The timetable is set between the operator and the infrastructure owner, with the safeguard of the Passenger Service Requirement being in the franchise deal to cover minimum levels of service. What has happened with Franchising Mark 2 is that the Bowker Terror was imposed and the SRA has far too tightly specified the level of service - in effect virtually writing the franchise's timetable - and the Purges of the Railways Act 2005 have merely meant that DfT has gained their power, and thus awarded franchises to the highest bidder. Repeat of 1996 when OPRAF were dishing out franchises to the cheapest subsidy bidder - many of the late-awarded franchises failed because their business case simply didn't stack up. Hence South West Trains is still Stagecoach, but who remembers Prism Rail?

Franchising, if applied for 25 years plus, and with a reviewable Passenger Service Requirement, which specifies the minimum services to be run, can work, provided there is a vertical interface between management of the infrastructure and management of the operations. The best adaption of the present model is to keep Network Rail as infrastructure owner, with maintenance responsibilities, but to get more TOC involvement between NR and each TOC, especially financial ties. The franchises would need the Government to act as an informed buyer, specifying a set level of subsidy for each TOC, with subsidy and PSR reviewed every five years. 25+ years also means the ROSCOs can be done away with, stock must be specified, purchased and owned by the operator. If one of the owning groups wishes to pull out, then the franchise could be transferred by tranferring the ownership of the TOC to a Government-approved bidder. This would be of the form of the Government declaring it has no objections, providing conditions are met. However this structure works out, the management of tactical issues must be in the hands of railway professionals, not elected politicians.

salopiangrowler · Post by **salopiangrowler** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:17 pm

skipperdipper wrote:I just thought, since the 180's are identicles to the 175's (apart from being 25mph faster), why can't they move to Chester depot and run Holyhead-Crewe services? This would release 175's for Cardiff-Holyhead working which could become 3-car, replacing 158's on the odd turn which could strengthen other services.

Rob

Curve at holyheads too tight the only available platform to take a front end like that is the platform on the longest side, the one the virgins and railtours use. Plus in crewe they would only be able to use platform 9 in there present length as 10's too short and 11 and 12 are particulary busy with 12 having a bit of a bend in half way down. The 180's were only built with one track in mind the GWML, a major facelift would be needed if they were to operate nationwide. and if Arriva were to have them then they'd want to use them on longer distance services ie: Fishguard or Camarthen - Holyhead. i think a 5 car 125mph dmu would be a bit silly on a holyhead - crewe local, give them to VWC for the Euston Holyheads.