December 17, 2006

GNER hand in the keys

Writing about web page

Friday was a sad day for Britain’s rail industry. GNER, arguably one of the better TOCs on Britain’s rail network, has surrendered its franchise, as it is no longer able to meet its premium payments to the government for the franchise. The award of the franchise required the payment of a total of £1.3 billion over the 10 years of the franchise, starting with a net subsidy to GNER in the frst year, with a steadily rising premium payment over the remaining 9 years. At the time, this amount was seen as being very optimistic (including me), and many industry experts felt GNER would struggle to pay this, whilst retaining something in the form of profit from their operations. Add to this the current financial woes of parent company Sea Containers, and it is clear the GNER took a huge gamble with their bid, one which, it turns out, has rather disastrously not paid off. In some ways, GNER have been a little unlucky, with the 7/7 bombings putting a (possibly long lasting) dent in their passenger numbers, a rise in track access charges paid to Network Rail due to rising ‘leccy bills for the ECML, and lower compensation payments from Network Rail for post-Hatfield delays, although, should GNER have allowed some form of margin for error to take account of such things, particularly seeing as their bid was over £300 million more than than that of their nearest rival. Add to this the threat of extra competition on the ECML from Grand Central’s new Sunderland to London service, which commences in May and was rather controversially (in GNER’s opinion) allowed a York stop is liable to make a further dent in GNER’s revenues (although 3 GC trains a day vs the 30 or so trains GNER operate won’t make too much of a difference to GNER’s revenue allocation, particularly seeing as a more frequent service may actually increase passenger numbers!).

But should the Government be accepting such ambitious franchise deals, and is the treasury encouraging recklessness amongst franchise bidders, going for quantity over quality? The recently let South West Trains and First Great Western franchises have premium payments totall £1 billion +, so is there any risk of these going tits up either? The latter is particularly worrying, as FGW operates many rural branch lines, particularly in Devon and Cornwall, few of which turn any profit at all. The question is, can FGW make enough profits on its not-particularly-well-performing ‘Intercity’ and London suburban operations to cover losses made here and still meet it’s high premium payments. Could this be another GNER-to-be?

Anyway, GNER will continue to operate the franchise for the next 18 months (under revised terms) until a new franchisee is found. Then we face the prospect of First East Coast (and, as good as a 225 set would look in First Neon livery, the fewer rail franchises they have the better, in my opinion) or Virgin East Coast. The latter may be a Competition Commission headache, but, then again, competition on Britain’s railways? Don’t make me laugh!

- 2 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. I reckon Virgin will go for it and I’d like to see them run it. It’s possible that they won’t retain the Cross Country franchise which is in the process of being re-let, and given the number of shorter, more local services it’s about to inherit it won’t look as prestigious any more. Particularly when they start having to use stock other than the Pendolinos and Voyagers they love to shout about. If they did lose XC, taking on the East Coast franchise instead would be perfect – they’d still get to operate two franchises and not just any two, but both of the premier London-north of England-Scotland routes. Like you say, there might be competition issues, but then look at First – FGW now operate pretty much everything west of Paddington since Thames Trains was taken over and that hasn’t been a problem.

    17 Dec 2006, 22:55

  2. I agree, I think Virgin would probably do a good job if they won the East Coast franchise, and I’d choose them any day over Worst Group. That is provided they don’t Voyager-ify the Aberdeen, Inverness, Hull and Harrogate services of course! Or, if they do introduce Voyagers (or similar), make them a decent length at least! Of course, HST2 (if and when it actually gets built) would be ideal for these (assuming HST2 is diesel powered).

    I’m not sure about Virgin’s prospects for retaining XC. On one hand they’ve vastly increased passenger numbers and replaced their entire fleet. But on the other, there’s still the issues of punctuality and overcrowding to address! If Virgin are prepared to seriously address these issues (and, to a lesser extent, are willing to retain the Gatwick/Brighton services, subject to there being a decent business case), then I’m all for Virgin. Longer (or more) Voyagers would be a good start…

    18 Dec 2006, 17:24

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

December 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Nov |  Today  | Jan
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • You must have been quite bored by Simon on this entry
  • Good point, especially not during Election season! PS Big man, Big ideas. by on this entry
  • A couple of years ago we had Michael Williams, "The Shorts for Sports", going round campaigning in a… by Michael Jones on this entry
  • Hamid, you say shameless like it's a bad thing! by on this entry
  • You could have at least made it a trackback/asked Ian to edit a mention in the main article instead … by on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder