Franchising
changes to rail franchising should result in better quality services for passengers. The government is also keen to see that franchise reforms help to cut carbon emissions. Another major objective is to ensure that
future franchises deliver more investment in what passengers want. The document states: ‘We envisage more flexible franchise agreements which give operators stronger incentives to make the improvements they know are important to their customers. We believe that giving the people who run train services increased opportunities and incentives to deliver improvements to the railways will help ensure such programmes are focused more closely on passenger concerns.’ It also suggests that compared to
Network Rail, which is largely tasked with these programmes at present, train operators have a much more direct interest in delivering the sort of improvements to stations and services that matter most to passengers. But for the RMT rail union, some of the proposals simply go too far. Its general secretary, Bob Crow says: ‘The government are paving the way for a land grab by the private companies of the valuable assets held by Network Rail and are paving the way for the break-up of the network with dire consequences as they fragment what’s left of the national system.’ A final objective aims to give operators
more control over their cost base. According to the consultation, some of the biggest costs a franchisee faces – notably the leasing of rolling stock, payments for track access and wage bills – are largely fixed. Longer franchises, it maintains, would give operators the opportunity to tackle these costs, as well as modernise working practices. But other proposals designed to
deliver more flexibility have also raised concerns. The consultation document appears to suggest that future franchising arrangements could give Tocs the ability to axe unprofitable rail services. The current system, it maintains, allows operators very little flexibility to make ‘sensible changes’ to any services without the agreement of government. Part of the problem is that almost all services are included in the contract. The consultation document says: ‘We believe that there is value in allowing more services to be managed flexibly by the operator, to ensure that they can target services on the areas of highest demand, and make changes where they are justified by changing demand.’
Under the proposals, some commercial
services might not be mandated through the franchise agreement. However, ministers are also considering whether further flexibility could be provided so that operators could reduce service frequency or change calling patterns, if planned demand doesn’t materialise. The document states: ‘This would allow them to deploy the trains or staff on routes with higher demand. Such measures would need careful design to ensure that the outputs purchased by government on behalf of passengers continue to be delivered.’ This aspect of the proposals has already
drawn criticism from the Campaign for Better Transport. Its executive director, Stephen Joseph says: ‘Passengers will end up blaming the government for these cuts. Although the railway cannot be frozen, changes have to be made which are not just about short-term financial gain.’
Of course, not everyone has been so
critical of the latest plans for the changes to the railways. Atoc has welcomed the start of the consultation. Its chief executive Michael Roberts says: ‘The government is absolutely right to point out that franchising has become too prescriptive and limits operational flexibility at the expense of passengers and taxpayers.’ He adds: ‘On the right terms, longer
and more flexible franchises, with clear commitments on service quality, would allow train operators to deliver improvements more quickly, help drive down costs and open the door to more private sector investment.’ The consultation period is due to end in
the middle of October.
PETER PLISNER IS THE BBC’S MIDLANDS TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT:
peter.plisner@
railpro.co.uk
Unprofitable services could potentially be cut when franchise agreements are reformed
SEPTEMBER 2010 PAGE 23
Ben Britton
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40