How would you interpret this franchise requirement?

[pemma]

Northern Rail have the following as a franchise requirement:

The Franchisee shall maintain the composition of the Train Fleet during the Franchise Term, unless the Secretary of State otherwise agrees, such that there are no changes to the Train Fleet, including changes:
16.1.1 to the classes or types;
16.1.2 to the interior configurations; or
16.1.3 which may reduce the journey time capabilities,

In the case of some trains (particularly 142s with bus seats) broken seats have been removed but not replaced. Obviously Northern can't get new bus seats for trains due to them not meeting the latest standards even if they have grandfather (or dinosaur) rights on current trains.

To me removing broken seats is reducing the seated capacity of trains (with numbers specified elsewhere in the agreement) is changing the interior configuration and a breach of franchise agreement.

However, if you were to fit say 5 x 142s with the same type of seats as on the 450s and then use the usable seats removed from those 142s to replace seats on other 142s then the 5 refurbished 142s would have a change of interior configuration unless you can fit in exactly the same number of seats (unlikely) so again it would be a breach of franchise agreement.

So it seems to me it's a pointless clause when Northern have such an old fleet. I can see the same clause meaning something with TPE who have a modern fleet but not Northern.

 

[Murph]

In the case of some trains (particularly 142s with bus seats) broken seats have been removed but not replaced. Obviously Northern can't get new bus seats for trains due to them not meeting the latest standards even if they have grandfather (or dinosaur) rights on current trains.

To me removing broken seats is reducing the seated capacity of trains (with numbers specified elsewhere in the agreement) is changing the interior configuration and a breach of franchise agreement.

Could they not find a Leyland National that was on the way to be scrapped and use the seats from it? They might even be able to choose from a wider range of donors, as the seats look superficially identical to those on the Alexander Y Type bus. If it's a like for like replacement, I'd think that grandfather rights would continue to apply. Of course, the buses would only have the 2s, so broken 3s might be more of a problem.

As for breach of the agreement, it's a commercial contract between DfT and TOC, so breach is irrelevant if the other side doesn't care or complain about it. If the disadvantaged party knows about it and does nothing, it becomes a tacit acceptance of the change. If it's truly impossible to get replacement parts for something, the lawyers could probably force DfT to permit the change to fewer seats in some units, unless DfT were willing to cover the additional cost of an upgrade.

 

[pemma]

Could they not find a Leyland National that was on the way to be scrapped and use the seats from it?

Less than 50% of the seats on a 142 with bus seats are for 2 passengers. I think the only place 3 seaters were on Leyand buses was on some double deckers on the top deck in front of the stairs with some single seats to the left of the stairs.

 

[pablo]

.........................................

As for breach of the agreement, it's a commercial contract between DfT and TOC, so breach is irrelevant if the other side doesn't care or complain about it. If the disadvantaged party knows about it and does nothing, it becomes a tacit acceptance of the change. If it's truly impossible to get replacement parts for something, the lawyers could probably force DfT to permit the change to fewer seats in some units, unless DfT were willing to cover the additional cost of an upgrade.

Murphy's Law.

All they need is a letter from the SoS saying, "Get on with it". What's the prob?

 

[WatcherZero]

Generally been seen as not important to replace them as increases standing capacity and overall capacity which is more important in peak.

 

[joeykins82]

So, the reason that we stick doggedly to TOC franchising is because private operators are innovative and quickly adapt to the market requirements, but they'd need explicit permission from the secretary of state for transport to make a change to the seating configuration of one of their trains or to invest in any rolling stock in any way? I see.

 

[Murph]

So, the reason that we stick doggedly to TOC franchising is because private operators are innovative and quickly adapt to the market requirements, but they'd need explicit permission from the secretary of state for transport to make a change to the seating configuration of one of their trains or to invest in any rolling stock in any way? I see.

You're not really interpreting that contract clause fairly. It prevents the TOC making a negative change to the service, but leaves the TOC free to propose a positive change.

 

[pablo]

So, the reason that we stick doggedly to TOC franchising is because private operators are innovative and quickly adapt to the market requirements, but they'd need explicit permission from the secretary of state for transport to make a change to the seating configuration of one of their trains or to invest in any rolling stock in any way? I see.

Who wrote the franchise agreement?

 

[pemma]

Who wrote the franchise agreement?

In the case of Northern originally the SRA but the updates have been written by DfT.

 

[CosherB]

Before we all start pontificating, I'd like to see all non-legal types on here writing a water-tight franchise contract ......

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Less than 50% of the seats on a 142 with bus seats are for 2 passengers. I think the only place 3 seaters were on Leyand buses was on some double deckers on the top deck in front of the stairs with some single seats to the left of the stairs.

In my very early days in the early 1950's. I can dimly recall the upstairs saloon having a passageway at the right hand of the bus leading from the stairs access, with long seating for 5 or 6 people on each set row.

Can anyone with details on what services or where that these vehicles were operational about sixty years ago.

 

[3141]

In my very early days in the early 1950's. I can dimly recall the upstairs saloon having a passageway at the right hand of the bus leading from the stairs access, with long seating for 5 or 6 people on each set row.

Can anyone with details on what services or where that these vehicles were operational about sixty years ago.

Lowbridge double deckers. The row of seats usually had room for four. The gangway, described as "sunken", was lower and the headroom above the seats was lower as well. The sunken gangway protruded into the right-hand side of the lower deck and there would be notices advising passengers to mind their heads as they got up.

They were used on routes with low bridges not high enough for a standard double decker, where the amount of traffic was too much for a single decker - likely, in those days, to seat no more than 35 - to cope with.

 

[pablo]

Bristol Lowdeckers were used by Crosville out of New Ferry depot around North Wales as I recall.

 

[Fishplate84]

Does it mean DfT couldn't care less about the quality and want no change, delivered at lowest possible cost.
Lets be honest, nobody is going to propose worse stock, so DfT are barring anything better.

We basically have a nationalised railway in all but name and this is the result.

 

[pemma]

Does it mean DfT couldn't care less about the quality and want no change, delivered at lowest possible cost.
Lets be honest, nobody is going to propose worse stock, so DfT are barring anything better.

We basically have a nationalised railway in all but name and this is the result.

The clause does say "unless the Secretary of State otherwise agrees". Would they agree if it resulted in a higher subsidy was required? Not likely except maybe if the change was required to meet legislation set out by the government e.g. like when Northern created wheelchair bays on the original interior 150/2s.

However, what about if the operator proposed reinvesting their own profits? More likely. However, there's still the consideration of whether doing that could prevent the franchise from being on revenue share (where part of the subsidy gets paid back to DfT for making more money than envisaged) so I still think they might exercise caution.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Isn't it the job of train owning ROSCOs to alter the trains? They own them so they should replace the seats. Imagine a company that rent out vans expecting the person renting to replace the seat. It would never happen.

 

[Fishplate84]

[/quote]However, what about if the operator proposed reinvesting their own profits? More likely. However, there's still the consideration of whether doing that could prevent the franchise from being on revenue share (where part of the subsidy gets paid back to DfT for making more money than envisaged) so I still think they might exercise caution.[/quote]

I can understand if the net result was more subsidy, caution needed. But it would be a sad position if it was net neutral. Private operator wants to reinvest profits in better equipment and service and DfT says no because it wants to keep the kickback flowing.

Its an ironic position where the state is behaving exactly as the private sector is accused of behaving and being more interested in extracting its own 'profits', and the private sector is doing what nationalisation fans believe, in wanting to invest in services but is prevented from doing so. Loose loose all round, apart from the state.

 

[pemma]

Isn't it the job of train owning ROSCOs to alter the trains? They own them so they should replace the seats. Imagine a company that rent out vans expecting the person renting to replace the seat. It would never happen.

It seems to be a case of either could do a refurbishment but if it's the ROSCO it will result in higher leasing charges being charged by the ROSCO to the TOC.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Northern Rail have the following as a franchise requirement:

Is that the franchise agreement which expired last year, or the new direct award?
If the former it's now history.
I doubt today's DfT want Northern to keep its multiplicity of stock types and make no improvements.
It will be superseded again next year, hopefully with fewer but upgraded stock types.
You can be sure that the DfT will be funding every penny spent until a new commercial deal is in place (hence don't spend unless we say so).

 

[pemma]

Is that the franchise agreement which expired last year, or the new direct award?
If the former it's now history.

It's in both. The direct award agreement is the original franchise agreement drawn up by the SRA with some modifications not a completely rewritten contract. The part of the franchise agreement relating to rolling stock is identical to what it was before the direct award with the exception of the inclusion of 319s and the change in lease end dates to February 2016. The original franchise agreement has seen many changes over the years despite the Coalition giving excuses about it's what the previous government wrote in to the franchise agreement when they don't want to change something.