Memorandum submitted by Mr A Crowhurst
PASSENGER RAIL FRANCHISING
SUMMARY
It would not be possible for a passenger with
no involvement in the rail industry to address all of the concerns
and questions to be addressed by the Committee but it might be
worthwhile to make points in that limited capacity. These are
therefore submitted in the order that they have been raised in
the invitation and cover franchise management, lengths and other
related matters as well as Government involvement in management.
1. The purpose of Rail Franchising
Should the ultimate aim be to provide passengers
with ever improving services of an increasing number of routes
in comfortable vehicles. This should be achieved with the minimum
of Government involvement after it has set the initial criteria
for each franchise. There should then be no further Government
involvement in matters involving the running of trains over and
above the initial franchise conditions, the choice of equipment
used or the investment by the franchisee in additional equipment.
It would of course be necessary for the Government to ensure that
franchise conditions are met but that should be all.
The current system clearly does not meet those
conditions since continuing changes to franchises must make improvements
more difficult. Rail equipment is very expensive and any franchise
must be of sufficient length for costs to be met, say 10-15 years
minimum with options for a further similar period. There is too
much Government involvement with day to day management ie which
type of train should be used, which stations may be served etc.
I can make no comment on the franchise process
as my knowledge comes only from the media who reported on franchise
extensions, delays in making awards, referrals to the Competition
Commission, etc. There appears to be, when viewed from outside
the process, great difficulty in reaching decisions for whatever
reasons.
2. Franchise process
I do not know what input passengers have especially
after the removal of the regional passenger committees and their
centralisation into one body based in London. I am not aware of
any input by passengers into the design of franchised services
other than in making pleas for changes.
3. Transfer from SRA to DfT
Yet another of the continuous process of change
that must make those within the industry wonder what is going
to happen next. I am not convinced that franchising should be
handled directly by a ministry rather than a more independent
body.
4. Franchise size and length
Some aspects of franchise size concern me, eg
the limitation of services into a station to those run by a specific
franchisee. This has resulted, for example, in the loss of a valued
rail service from the Marches into London Waterloo.
I have quoted above my views on franchise length—I
am amazed that any company would consider five year terms or that
the Government could consider terms so short as to limit development
and improvement.
Not being a commuter I have had very positive
experiences of some franchises. Others have been less good but
possibly not always because of their managements. For example
if a franchisee is obliged to use a particular type of rolling
stock and has only a year or two to complete the franchise he
will not consider replacement with more modern equipment which
might meet the same operating conditions with which he has to
comply.
I cannot make observations on risk management
as only the parties concerned can do this. With the detailed involvement
of Government in the management of franchises I consider that
the scope for improving services is severely limited.
5. Competition and integration
Since it is very difficult to introduce any
new service let alone one providing competition, I would consider
that under the current systems there is very little scope for
any significant development under current arrangements.
As far as vertical integration is concerned
would this now be possible under relevant EC rules? Whilst there
should be closer co-operation between TOCs and Network rail I
cannot see how systems could be combined save for exceptional
circumstances eg the Isle of Wight.
There is one aspect in which closer co-operation
is required and that involves the design of rail vehicle operating
systems. In 2006 should not it be possible for all new types of
vehicle to be able to connect up and run with all others, ie some
kind of standardisation. Should not the industry also be working
to ensure that as many vehicles as possible can access as much
as possible of the rail network with the eventual aim of universal
accessibility.
CONCLUSION
Whilst I feel that the overall franchising concept
is worthwhile and has provided many benefits that might not otherwise
have been provided, the current piecemeal system of relatively
short franchises, very short extensions and the detailed management
by Government needs a thorough review. After so doing the Government
of the day should only act to police compliance with franchise
terms and not be involved in rail management per se. Franchises
should be for realistic terms such that much more investment can
be justified.
| 
