Should franchises keep the same branding?

[AndrewE]

1. Uniforms have to be replaced and things repainted anyway

but not all at once, with suddenly-obsolete clothing stock thrown away. It also makes more sense to refresh the outside of a train when some other work needs doing anyway.

 

[Aictos]

The Scots have changed the brand more than once haven’t they?

Actually since 2008 they haven’t changed the brand which is permanent so doesn’t change upon company operating it changes.

Yes National Express and First branded Scotrail using their design guidelines but the Scottish Government decided in 2008 to have a permanent brand which is why the brand hasn’t changed since 2008 with the only change being the operated by xxxxx on the trains and on the station signage.

 

[work-traveller]

Controversial opinion, though surely not the only holder of it:

Franchise branding is a waste of money and time - at the start/end of every franchise with the physical change and the redesign exercise. The overwhelming majority of passengers aren't interested in branding and just want to catch the train to wherever at whatever time. Network Rail has a Managed Station Wayfinding design guide, which also effectively acts as a branding design guide. This could be applied to all UK stations, so creating a national appearance and avoiding the less desirable franchise branding. This could also be extended to rolling stock.

 

[edwin_m]

The cost of the livery whether its paint or vinyl will vary per franchise as they all have different design elements with some being more simple and cheaper as a result than others

There's also the cost of taking the train out of service for the work to be done. It's not always possible to combine that with some other work that would be done anyway.

 

[tbtc]

1. Uniforms have to be replaced and things repainted anyway

This bears repeating!

I don't know how much people think paint costs, or whether they expect a work uniform to last significantly longer than ten years (?), but I really don't have a problem if a private TOC decide to use some of their own money to repaint a train. It's not like they are rushing to repaint everything on day one, often just a token amount for the sake of some positive PR (e.g. EMR having a 222 in purple so they generated some press attention to promote plans for the new franchise (which is a pretty cheap way of purchasing publicity).

Should we similarly ban cascades of stock between TOCs (because it'd mean having to repaint them - if people are so focussed on the cost of paint)?

Funnily, some of the biggest complainers about the fact that trains are "unnecessarily" painted every ten years when a franchise changes seem perfectly happy with repainting an HST into a history livery for the sake of a handful of jaunts up and down the ECML...

The liveries are mainly vinyls now aren’t they?
So don’t last as long or cost so much.
Even the sainted BR rebranded NSE (via Jaffa) and NSE was changed at least once in 8 years.....

How many versions of InterCity were there? The prototype, the original, Swallow, Executive, Mainline... lots of different paint jobs... BR seemed more focussed on marketing than they were on actually running trains... constantly tinkering with liveries in the period after 1980... NSE changed (as you say), there were different versions of Regional Railways too... but people seem able to ignore this (whilst complaining about the "paint" used by modern TOCs)

 

[edwin_m]

I don't know how much people think paint costs, or whether they expect a work uniform to last significantly longer than ten years (?), but I really don't have a problem if a private TOC decide to use some of their own money to repaint a train. It's not like they are rushing to repaint everything on day one, often just a token amount for the sake of some positive PR (e.g. EMR having a 222 in purple so they generated some press attention to promote plans for the new franchise (which is a pretty cheap way of purchasing publicity).

It's not "their own money". It will be allowed for in the finances of the TOC and result in either less premium or more subsidy, hence more taxpayer money going into the railway as a whole.

Fair enough if they are confident that the extra publicity will bring in enough revenue to make it worthwhile. But some rebrandings (Northern in 2004ish springs to mind, also the Virgin re-painting of the BR WCML sets) consisted of just painting the outside in the operator's shiny new livery while doing nothing for either the interiors or the quality of service. In those cases people just see that money has been spent to no good purpose and their opinion of the TOC will be worse than before. It's interesting that Arriva seemed to learn that lesson when they took over XC, as they put posters up pointing out that the interior refresh and the re-paint of their 170s didn't run in lockstep so there would be some re-painted trains with old interiors for a time.

 

[AndrewE]

1. Uniforms have to be replaced and things repainted anyway

This bears repeating!
I don't know how much people think paint costs, or whether they expect a work uniform to last significantly longer than ten years (?)

It still doesn't alter the fact that replacing uniforms on a 5- or painting on a 10-year cycle spreads the cost over a number of years. A sudden complete change costs you for the disposal of un-issued stock and for a complete new set of everything for everyone on day 1.
I have several brand-new or almost unused waterproof insulated, jackets given to me by my son after his firm was repeatedly taken over and re-branded. None of them would have needed replacing before now.

 

[Goldfish62]

Controversial opinion, though surely not the only holder of it:

Franchise branding is a waste of money and time - at the start/end of every franchise with the physical change and the redesign exercise. The overwhelming majority of passengers aren't interested in branding and just want to catch the train to wherever at whatever time. Network Rail has a Managed Station Wayfinding design guide, which also effectively acts as a branding design guide. This could be applied to all UK stations, so creating a national appearance and avoiding the less desirable franchise branding. This could also be extended to rolling stock.

Virgin West Coast obviously had to be rebranded, as did VTEC. The majority of TOCs around now will most probably transfer brands to the next franchise holder. With TfW, WMT, LNER and EMR (and SER if the competition hadn't been cancelled) this is explicitly stated, joining Merseyrail and Scotrail, and is more than likely with GWR, SWR and Northern.

Regarding branding, never underestimate the Power of the Brand, but of course there are powerful ones and completely useless ones. In the former category I'd put InterCity.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Controversial opinion, though surely not the only holder of it:

Franchise branding is a waste of money and time ... ... ....

I think that's true; and here's the evidence.

Very recently I caught a TPE 350 at Piccadilly platform 14 going North, and on another occasion, watched from the platform at Preston another of their 350s also heading North. Although both were in complete LNwR livery, including operator's name, and, in my opinion, the LNwR livery is completely different from the TPE one (layout, colours) I didn't detect a single passenger asking staff whether the train concerned was, indeed, a TPE one and not an LNwR one.

 

[tbtc]

It's not "their own money". It will be allowed for in the finances of the TOC and result in either less premium or more subsidy, hence more taxpayer money going into the railway as a whole.

Fair enough if they are confident that the extra publicity will bring in enough revenue to make it worthwhile. But some rebrandings (Northern in 2004ish springs to mind, also the Virgin re-painting of the BR WCML sets) consisted of just painting the outside in the operator's shiny new livery while doing nothing for either the interiors or the quality of service. In those cases people just see that money has been spent to no good purpose and their opinion of the TOC will be worse than before. It's interesting that Arriva seemed to learn that lesson when they took over XC, as they put posters up pointing out that the interior refresh and the re-paint of their 170s didn't run in lockstep so there would be some re-painted trains with old interiors for a time.

If you are a private firm and win the bid to run a franchise with a certain level of premium/subsidy that offers best value to the treasury then I'm not too fussed if you then decide to spend some of your own money on (re)painting things.

It's money that would otherwise go to shareholders as profit.

If it was such a big deal/cost then any bids from companies planning to do this would be undercut by bids from companies planning to spend nothing on rebranding.

I'm always surprised by how emotive the issue of money spent on (re)painting is, when you consider the *billions* of pounds in Network Rail debt and various other ridiculous costs in our inefficient railways, which never seem to get the same level of attention.

(there's also a type of enthusiast who are quick to complain when a refurb is "only" new seat coverings and hand rails - e.g. who expect everything to be replaced on a train when it gets refurbished - I'm not including @edwin_m in that - just saying that there are some people are quick to complain about TOCs not replacing things that aren't life expired - e.g. there was a thread recently when people were moaning about Voyager seats still being the same colours that they always were)

 

[HSTEd]

If you are a private firm and win the bid to run a franchise with a certain level of premium/subsidy that offers best value to the treasury then I'm not too fussed if you then decide to spend some of your own money on (re)painting things.

It's money that would otherwise go to shareholders as profit.

Except that if you don't repaint the previous holder's corporate colours you will be giving them free advertising indefinitely.
Indeed this could be used to distort the franchising system because it gives the incumbents a significant advantage.

 

[Meerkat]

Except that if you don't repaint the previous holder's corporate colours you will be giving them free advertising indefinitely.
Indeed this could be used to distort the franchising system because it gives the incumbents a significant advantage.

Then you don’t allow corporate colours. All corporate or non-standard name branding has to be removed before handover

 

[HSTEd]

Then you don’t allow corporate colours. All corporate or non-standard name branding has to be removed before handover

That is rather hard to enforce unless you just force standardised branding on the carriages..... which you apparently don't want to do.

The obvious example is Stagecoach, which had corporate branding that effectively covered the entire train.
The only way to remove it is to repaint/revinyl the entire thing.

 

[edwin_m]

Then you don’t allow corporate colours. All corporate or non-standard name branding has to be removed before handover

That is rather hard to enforce unless you just force standardised branding on the carriages..... which you apparently don't want to do.

The obvious example is Stagecoach, which had corporate branding that effectively covered the entire train.
The only way to remove it is to repaint/revinyl the entire thing.

But it is actually where we are now. Virgin re-painted Pendolinos and Voyagers into neutral colours a few years back, presumably when the original paint jobs were considered life-expired. And with the demise of the Stagecoach franchises there is now no passenger operator using the colours of its current owning group. Greater Anglia is a possible exception but Abellio is quite happy to use other colours elsewhere so presumably wouldn't mind if the next franchisee kept the red and white.

 

[AndrewE]

There's a blindingly obvious answer to all these (repeated) debates: just scrap the basic structure! Private sector provision of public needs is generally a recipe for disaster. Anyone got a vulnerable relative in a care home? Do you read the CQC reports - and the complaints that suppliers game the system and keep on getting away with it?
How long will it take for people to acknowledge that running public transport is far too important to allow the vagaries of "the market" to distort the outcomes? (e.g. when contractors of whatever business model is currently being tried out run rings round the contract managers, milk it in the short term and do a runner before the taxpayer breaks even.)
I realise that the obsessive "the private sector is the only answer/is the only way to do anything better" will never agree, even with all the evidence that is staring them in the face. However I imagine that some others with more open minds might ask themselves if trying to run the current model is more trouble than it is worth

But it is actually where we are now. Virgin re-painted Pendolinos and Voyagers into neutral colours a few years back, presumably when the original paint jobs were considered life-expired. And with the demise of the Stagecoach franchises there is now no passenger operator using the colours of its current owning group. Greater Anglia is a possible exception but Abellio is quite happy to use other colours elsewhere so presumably wouldn't mind if the next franchisee kept the red and white.

Given that "Virgin" (Ltd, PLC or whatever) has been a very minor part of the WCML for a long time now, that they (not really Branson's lot) have just been paid to run the trains (and ironically can't claim much credit for the current quite good performance,) and that if it does go t*ts up Beardy would be glad not to be linked with it in any way, is it a surprise that the Virgin name and colours have disappeared?

 

[james_the_xv]

I think that's true; and here's the evidence.

Very recently I caught a TPE 350 at Piccadilly platform 14 going North, and on another occasion, watched from the platform at Preston another of their 350s also heading North. Although both were in complete LNwR livery, including operator's name, and, in my opinion, the LNwR livery is completely different from the TPE one (layout, colours) I didn't detect a single passenger asking staff whether the train concerned was, indeed, a TPE one and not an LNwR one.

On the contrary, since the 390s have been in plain white I've had people ask me on the platform at Coventry if the white Pendolino approaching is Avanti/Virgin or LNWR.

 

[Andyh82]

Northern is the clear reason why operators shouldn’t keep the same branding.

The vast majority of the public think it’s the same company since 2004, and hence ask why they are still waiting for improvements when they’ve had 15 years.

Media reports regularly show pictures of trains from the previous franchise, which they obviously think are correct as it’s got Northern written on the side.

Unless there is absolutely no negative baggage, then any new franchise needs a new name.

 

[Djgr]

Northern is the clear reason why operators shouldn’t keep the same branding.

The vast majority of the public think it’s the same company since 2004, and hence ask why they are still waiting for improvements when they’ve had 15 years.

Media reports regularly show pictures of trains from the previous franchise, which they obviously think are correct as it’s got Northern written on the side.

Unless there is absolutely no negative baggage, then any new franchise needs a new name.

Agree. The Northern brand is toxic.

 

[Djgr]

Is it true that Virgin Trains had to pay Virgin Group an annual licence to use the Virgin brand?

 

[Meerkat]

The obvious example is Stagecoach, which had corporate branding that effectively covered the entire train.
The only way to remove it is to repaint/revinyl the entire thing.

SWT wasn’t in corporate colours. Wish they were staying - the red or blue or white was a great colour scheme, and much better than the insipid SWR

There's a blindingly obvious answer to all these (repeated) debates: just scrap the basic structure! Private sector provision of public needs is generally a recipe for disaster. Anyone got a vulnerable relative in a care home? Do you read the CQC reports - and the complaints that suppliers game the system and keep on getting away with it?

The NHS is nationalised but seems to have plenty of examples of bad care.
And managers of nationalised industries will game their targets just the same.
But when the NHS ballses up the taxpayer pays the compo and the management stay in place, rather than shareholders paying the compo and then losing the contract.

 

[HSTEd]

SWT wasn’t in corporate colours. Wish they were staying - the red or blue or white was a great colour scheme, and much better than the insipid SWR

They used colour schemes clearly derived from the associated bus colour schemes........

 

[Meerkat]

They used colour schemes clearly derived from the associated bus colour schemes........

Plain red, plain white, plain blue, are not clearly corporate related - I doubt many passengers even noticed the orange bit..... Unless they have the exact colours as IP (or however you do that) they aren’t an issue, OR just get rid of the orange.

 

[AndrewE]

The NHS is nationalised but seems to have plenty of examples of bad care.

Maybe, but nothing on the scale of private care homes.

And managers of nationalised industries will game their targets just the same.

Quite. Another nail in the coffin of Management by Objectives... abandoned by forward-looking private sector companies but still being forced on the public sector - whose management consultants always seem to be a decade or two behind current practice!

 

[Meerkat]

Maybe, but nothing on the scale of private care homes.Quite. Another nail in the coffin of Management by Objectives... abandoned by forward-looking private sector companies but still being forced on the public sector - whose management consultants always seem to be a decade or two behind current practice!

You have the stats?
How do you manage without any objectives?
“What do you want me to do?”
“Dunno, surprise me”

 

[AndrewE]

You have the stats?
How do you manage without any objectives?
“What do you want me to do?”
“Dunno, surprise me”

First google click: https://hbr.org/2003/01/management-by-whose-objectives

management by objectives, an approach to performance appraisal that’s gone out of fashion for the most part. But read more closely, it’s an indictment of the measurement systems we still use today. Harry Levinson, a gifted psychologist who has published 13 articles in HBR, identified a constellation of problems that cripple performance appraisal systems...
Levinson’s suggestions for reform recall Frederick Herzberg’s findings: People are most deeply motivated by work that stretches and excites them while also advancing organizational goals.
Despite the fact that the concept of management by objectives (MBO) has by this time become an integral part of the managerial process, the typical MBO effort perpetuates and intensifies hostility, resentment, and distrust between a manager and subordinates. As currently practiced, it is really just industrial engineering with a new name, applied to higher managerial levels, and with the same resistances intact.

A job description and an understanding of the objectives of the organisation allows people to play their part in achieving them, rather than devoting themselves to ticking boxes which (as often as not) turn out to be far from the things which are really needed by the organisation. The whole article is worth reading, it also says

No matter how detailed the job description, it is essentially static—that is, a series of statements.
However, the more complex the task and the more flexible an employee must be in it, the less any fixed statement of job elements will fit what that person does. Thus, the higher a person rises in an organization and the more varied and subtle the work, the more difficult it is to pin down objectives that represent more than a fraction of his or her effort.

which is what made it unusable or irrelevant where I worked - in a reactive job all the time.

 

[Meerkat]

First google click: https://hbr.org/2003/01/management-by-whose-objectives

A job description and an understanding of the objectives of the organisation allows people to play their part in achieving them, rather than devoting themselves to ticking boxes which (as often as not) turn out to be far from the things which are really needed by the organisation.

That link just says that MBO is being done badly, not that there is an alternative.
I don’t see that there is an alternative (except for expensive consultants/snake oil salesman using lots of flash phrases to reinvent it as something remarkably similar)

 

[357 LTSRail]

Honestly think that passengers would be more frustrated at seemingly wasted money on rebranding than delivering service improvements if the franchise was rebranded. c2c have recently been replacing station branding across their route, and it has been perfect ammunition for disgruntled commuters to complain at them seemingly spending money on signage but doing nothing about service reliability and overcrowding, despite the obvious budget discrepancies and franchise commitments at stake.

 

[BurtonM]

I also agree Northern is toxic. I think there are cases, such as Northern, where a rebrand is a good idea. Northern also have a very cheap looking and informal brand and 'voice', there was potential there to make the company look more modern and mature.

The horrid blue and white is synonymous with Northern's issues and needs to go.

 

[RealTrains07]

I also agree Northern is toxic. I think there are cases, such as Northern, where a rebrand is a good idea. Northern also have a very cheap looking and informal brand and 'voice', there was potential there to make the company look more modern and mature.

The horrid blue and white is synonymous with Northern's issues and needs to go.

I agree. If their is anytime a brand should be changed, its after a TOC has its franchise taken away. Keeping the same brand just keeps the bad associations passengers have with it. A fresh look at least gives a clear fresh fresh start

 

[Doomotron]

Controversial opinion, though surely not the only holder of it: Franchise branding is a waste of money and time - at the start/end of every franchise with the physical change and the redesign exercise. The overwhelming majority of passengers aren't interested in branding and just want to catch the train to wherever at whatever time. Network Rail has a Managed Station Wayfinding design guide, which also effectively acts as a branding design guide. This could be applied to all UK stations, so creating a national appearance and avoiding the less desirable franchise branding. This could also be extended to rolling stock.

Very wrong. I often hear people noticing the colours of different trains. On Southeastern's Class 377/1s (particularly when they still had Southern branding), I heard someone notice that the train "wasn't the usual one". One of my friends and myself were talking about the local trains where I live and she said that she hadn't seen the white and yellow ones for a long time (the old Southeastern livery). I explained that they'd been repainted into the new livery. When going through Clapham Junction, my dad was truck by the varieties of South West Trains liveries ("there's red ones with blue doors, there's blue ones with red doors"). Passengers DO notice brands (such as with Virgin) and DO notice colours, it's just a large number of train enthusiasts like to underestimate the public's intelligence.

On the contrary, since the 390s have been in plain white I've had people ask me on the platform at Coventry if the white Pendolino approaching is Avanti/Virgin or LNWR.

That's presumably because the LNWR livery is mostly white, as is the neutral Class 30 livery.