Download Free The Intercity East Coast Passenger Rail Franchise Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Intercity East Coast Passenger Rail Franchise and write the review.

The Department for Transport took a tough line in negotiating with the owner of the InterCity East Coast franchise, National Express, before terminating the franchise agreement in 2009. The Department avoided disruption to passenger services and protected the taxpayer, securing overall value for money. In awarding the contract to National Express in 2007, the Department had applied lessons learnt from the failure of the previous franchisee, Great North Eastern Railway, and got a good deal. Adequate protections for the taxpayer had been included in the contract if the franchisee got into financial difficulties. The Department did not consider it necessary to stress test bids for deliverability should there be an economic downturn. By January 2009, however, the Department considered that the franchise was at high risk of failure. It refused to renegotiate the terms of the contract and the contract was subsequently terminated. Termination was the best way of protecting the taxpayer. If other franchises, which were seen as at high risk, had sought to renegotiate their contracts, the Department may have had to support them at an estimated cost of £200 million to £450 million. The costs of setting up East Coast, the new publicly owned company to run the franchise, and its eventual return to the private sector are expected to be £15 million. National Express paid the Department of Transport £31 million on the termination of its contract. However, the final cost to the taxpayer will not be clear until the franchise has been re-let in 2012.
The InterCity East Coast Mainline is a hugely significant rail service, carrying around 19 million passengers a year between London, the North East and Scotland. In 2005, a contract was awarded to Great North Eastern Railway, but financial difficulties at its holding company meant that the franchise failed 18 months later. In 2007, a new contract was awarded to National Express to run the franchise on the basis that it would pay the Department £1.4 billion over seven and a half years. At the time, the East Coast franchise was one of three operated by National Express. As a result of the economic downturn, expected passenger revenues did not materialise and National Express announced in July 2009 that it wanted to opt out of the contract and would not provide the necessary financial support to the East Coast franchise. National Express paid just £120 million to walk away from a contract worth £1.4 billion to the taxpayer. The Department turned down the offer of an extra £30 million for a 'no fault' exit in order to send a warning to other holding companies. But the Department completely undermined its position by making clear that the termination would not be held against National Express in future bids. In doing so, the Department allowed National Express to get away scot free and with its reputation intact. By its actions in this case, the Department has potentially incentivised other holding companies with loss-making franchises to terminate, rather than renegotiate, their contracts. In future the Department must make clear to such companies that failure to deliver on their obligations will have serious lasting consequences.
For as long as we could remember steam traction had been king on our railways. The resounding beat of exhaust from classic designs by Gresley, Stanier, Collett, Bulleid and many others had thrilled us all, while less prestigious ‘work-horses’ had kept commuters and freight moving throughout a vast network of major and minor routes. Mighty diesels had replaced them, notably the iconic Class 55 ‘Deltics’, setting new standards for speed and efficiency on the East Coast Main Line. Electrification became the ‘buzz-word’ as the need for speed increased and drove railway planning to a new level. The West Coast Main Line saw the wires go up by the mid-1970s and though other express routes would eventually follow the stage was set for the development and introduction of an alternative mode of traction for main lines not yet electrified, based on the concept of a powerful diesel locomotive at each end of a rake of newly designed carriages. The High Speed Diesel Train was thus conceived. Sleek and elegant. A modern design for a new age of rail travel. Capable of running at speeds of up to 125mph (201km/h) it was an immediate success and is still giving stalwart service some forty years later. A testament to its resilience. This is the story of the archetypal express diesel train – the Inter City 125.
In this report the National Audit Office identifies issues and risks which may arise as the Department for Transport devolves more control over funding and delivery of transport services to local bodies. The Department has recently announced proposals to devolve funding for major transport schemes to new local transport bodies and is also consulting on devolving bus funding and some responsibilities for rail services to local authorities. The spending watchdog is calling on the Department to clarify its approach as it implements these changes and moves into the new ways of working. This includes being clearer on who is accountable for local transport funding and how they will be held to account. The Department has already said it will assess whether local transport bodies have appropriate systems and processes in place. But it should clarify how it will check that these devolved arrangements continue to meet its standards and what action it will take if standards are not met. In the context of increasing pressure on local budgets, the Department should clarify how local transport data can be better used to judge value for money and to compare performance between local areas. It also needs to identify areas and activities most at risk of a drop in performance and clarify under what circumstances it would expect to intervene.
The Office of Rail Regulation (the Regulator) is the independent economic and safety regulator of the rail industry in England, Scotland and Wales. The Regulator's duties include promoting economy and efficiency in the rail industry with much of its work focusing on Network Rail, the owner and monopoly provider of the national rail network, including track, signalling and stations. Network Rail does not face normal commercial pressures from investors and lenders to improve efficiency as it is a not-for-dividend company without shareholders, financed by debt guaranteed by the Government. It is therefore the role of the Regulator to hold Network Rail to account for its performance and to incentivise it to become more efficient. The Regulator sets efficiency targets when it determines the limits on fees Network Rail can charge train operators for use of tracks, stations and depots. Sir Roy McNulty's recent review of the rail industry showed that the rail industry continued to fail to achieve effective value for money. The Committee states that the Regulator did not exert sufficient pressure on Network Rail to improve its efficiency, and that there is an absence of effective sanctions for under-performance in the system and should enforce a stronger link between performance and bonus payments to Network Rail's senior managers. The relationship between Network Rail, the Regulator and their advisors appears to the Committee to be too cosy. Network Rail should be more accountable for its use of public money, and more transparent in its operations. The Committee sets out 11 conclusions and recommendations.
Ex-post evaluation is important to improving the delivery of transport policy objectives. It can be used for multiple purposes at the core of which is the improvement of ex-ante assessment. A small number of jurisdictions employ ex-post evaluation systematically and leading experience is ...
The competition held by the Department for Transport to award a new InterCity West Coast franchise in 2012 was intended to be the first in the most extensive programme of franchising since privatisation. Significant errors were made by the Department during the competition, which not only caused the cancellation of that franchise award at considerable public expense but also called into question the remaining franchising programme. This report is the second of two independent reviews commissioned by the Government, by Richard Brown, the Chairman of Eurostar. It concludes that franchising is a fundamentally sound approach for securing the passenger railway services on which so many people rely. His recommendations include: that the franchising programme should be restarted as soon as possible, but at a pace that both the department and the industry can sustain; that franchise terms should be determined by the circumstances and size of each individual franchise; proposals to strengthen and simplify the bidding and evaluation process for each franchise; proposals for the financial and contractual structure of future franchises, including in relation to risk allocation and capital requirements; and that the government should plan to devolve responsibility for further English franchises to the relevant authorities. Mr Brown also makes recommendations on how to strengthen the department's capability to manage the future franchising programme, echoing the findings of Sam Laidlaw's independent inquiry into the lessons to be learnt from the InterCity West Coast competition. The review also recommends that the Government should determine, by February, plans for the three franchise competitions which were put on hold
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Skills Funding Agency provide funding for further education students aged 19-plus. The Department for Education and the Young People's Learning Agency fund further education for 16-to-18-year-olds. These two departments provided £7.7 billion in funding to the sector during the 2010/11 academic year. The various government bodies that interact with the sector have different funding, qualification and assurance systems. Differences in the information required and collected create an unnecessary burden for training providers and divert money away from learners. To provide value for money, the systems need to be appropriate, efficient, avoid unnecessary duplication, and balance the protections they provide for public money with the costs of the bureaucracy they impose. No one body is currently accountable for reducing bureaucracy in the further education sector. Instead, the two Departments and the two funding agencies maintain separate responsibilities based on their funding streams. BIS has a stated policy objective of reducing bureaucracy imposed on further education providers but would not accept overall responsibility for bringing together efforts to reduce bureaucracy in the sector. Both BIS and DfE, and their funding agencies, have launched separate initiatives designed to simplify the requirements they place on providers. However BIS does not manage the simplification as a programme with a clear and consistent goal. While BIS has required the Agency to reduce its own administrative costs by 33%, there is no rational view on the amount by which they would like to reduce bureaucracy in providers nor do they accept that measurement of progress is necessary.
The Department for Transport competition to let the Intercity West Coast franchise lacked management oversight and the governance of the project was confused, according to the National Audit Office. The full cost to the taxpayer is unknown but likely to be significant, with at least £1.9 million in staff and adviser costs, £2.7 million in legal costs and £4.3 million on external advisers for the reviews that it has commissioned. The refranchising process was a major endeavour, with considerable complexity and uncertainty. The objectives of the Department for Transport were insufficiently clear during the franchise competition. The Department delayed the issuing of the invitation to tender by eight months because it had not finalized how it would implement recent policy changes. There was also confusion among Department staff about some aspects of the process. The subordinated loan facility was a particular area of confusion. A subordinated loan is capital provided by the parent company which guarantees franchise payments will be made to the Department should the franchisee get less passenger revenue than expected. However, there were significant errors in the tool the Department used to calculate how big a loan it would require bidders to have. The competition lacked strong project management and there was no clear route for the project team to get approval for major issues. No one person oversaw the whole process or could see patterns of emerging problems.