Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B1015 – Railways Bill 2016, TSR Government


    Railways Bill 2016

    An Act to An act intended to improve railway competition and increase the value for money from the taxpayer.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    Part I: Franchise tendering process
    (1) Network Rail shall determine the timetable for every railway route in the United Kingdom on the basis of need and service congestion.
    (2) Railway operating companies shall submit a bid to Network Rail, expressing their interest in operating services.
    (3) Network Rail shall then decide which railway operating company shall run which services.
    (4) When service frequency is more than once per hour, two individual operators will be granted the right to operate services
    (5) Network Rail will distribute said services equally on a per hour basis.
    (6) Unfilled time slots will be operated by 'Directly Operated Railways', a subsidiary of Network Rail, and will run under the trading name 'British Rail'.
    (7) The criteria for choosing successful bids are, in order from most important to least, as follows:
    -Trains operating on future ultra high speed lines must be capable of a top cruising speed of at least 200mph; greater speeds are better.
    -Trains operating on the old high speed lines must be capable of a top speed of at least 125mph; greater speeds are better.
    - Projected ticket prices; low prices are better.
    - Quality of the service; higher quality is better.
    - For all other lines, greater speeds are better.
    (8) Franchise routes in which subsidy has historically being required will require a minimum bid to be reached during the tendering process, where this floor price is not met, the franchise will be under the ownership and operation of Directly Operated Railways

    Part II: Removal of barriers to entry for 'open access'/private rail operators
    (1) Moderation of competition franchise clauses would be removed from all new franchise agreements

    Part III: Uniform operating franchise periods
    (1) Uniform operating franchise periods of up to nine years would be applied to all rail operating franchises
    (2) Franchises would be reviewed every two years and revoked if punctuality, reliability or overcrowding targets are not met.

    Part IV: Greater freedom for rail operators
    (1) Rail operating companies must purchase or lease their own rail assets; such as, but not limited to, rolling stock, subject to compliance of current and future technical regulations.
    All new franchise agreements wiill hereby stipulate that no operator is to use rolling more than 30 years of age

    Part V: Reform of fair rise
    (1) Rail fares would rise at an average of CPI+4% once per year and capped at 10% on each franchise route
    (2) During times of high inflation (defined in this case as being a CPI in excess of 4% for a period of twelve months or more) the Secretary Of State for Transport will have the discretionary power to increase rail fares at a level above that already mentioned.

    Part VI: Fault
    (1) Where a service is delayed due to maintenance on or malfunctions of tracks, signals, electrical cabling and other infrastructure owned by British Railways, there is no at fault third party.
    (2) Where a service is delayed due to a different service being delayed, the railway operating company of the latter service is the at fault third party (it is 'at fault'.
    (3) In all other instances of services being delayed, the railway operating company for that service is the at fault third party (it is 'at fault'.
    (4) Network Rail shall fine the at fault third party for the full cost of all compensation paid out to passengers in accordance with Sections 3(6) to 3(8).
    (5) Railway operating companies will be fined 10% of their revenue for the tax year if more than 25% of their services for that tax year are delayed, excluding those where this railway operating company is not at fault.
    (6) At the end of each tax year, railway operating companies will be fined 1% of their revenue for that tax year for each service which is very late, partially cancelled or cancelled, excluding those where this railway operating company is not at fault.
    (7) Railway operating companies will be deemed unable to complete their contract if the number of incidents for which they are at fault exceeds 25% of the total services run by that railway operating company.
    (8) When a railway operating company is deemed unable to complete their contract their services are replaced by Directly Operated Railways until the next auction.

    Part vii: Network Rail
    (1) The Secretary of State will take over control of Network Rail from the current guarantors.
    (2) The Secretary of State will appoint a:
    Managing Director, and a
    Financial Director, and an
    Infrastructure Director, and a
    Maintenance Director, and a
    Services Director;
    who will form a new Board of Directors.
    (3) Network Rail will set a price to charge railway companies per mile of track for usage for the next contract period upon application for use by an open access operator.. Prices should be chosen such that the profit of Network Rail is equal to or greater than, but as close to, £0.00 as possible.

    Part VIII: Commencement, extent and short title
    (1) This Act comes into force on the day after the date of Royal assent.
    - Parts one, two, three and four will apply as the current franchise agreements come to their contractual conclusion.
    - Parts five and six will apply immediately
    (2) This Act extends to the whole of England.
    (3) This Act may be cited as the Railways Act 2016.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Notes

    With UK passenger numbers at near record levels one goal of this bill is to allow greater access to to the rail network for private companies who pay the Department For Transport an access fee. Allowing these private operators to use the rail network not only increases competition forcing down prices but increases capacity. These private operators are also able to adapt to changes in demand at a much quicker pace than those companies restricted by franchise agreements and as a result open access rail operators typically poll highly in terms of customer satisfaction. One major barrier to entry for these firms is that some franchise agreements contain 'moderation of competition' clauses which effectively prevent private companies from providing services (one example being grand central wanting a Huddersfield to London service via Birmingham but who were blocked by Virgin).

    Currently the franchises awarded to the rail operating companies are a mish mash extending as much as 25 years or as little as 2 years, we propose franchise periods of up to 9 years with reviews every 2 years and the revoking of said franchise if targets relating to punctuality, reliability or overcrowding are not met. This puts greater pressure on the rail operators to provide a service deemed to be acceptable.

    In order to give franchisees greater powers to meet changes in demand from the consumer, regulation would be loosened so that rail operators would be allowed to purchase extra vehicles outright. This allows rail operators to increase capacity at will to meet the changes in demands of the consumer.

    Current pricing mechanisms allow rail operators to increase fares using an an annual inflation index (RPI) twice per year across the franchise routes. Given that RPI is an annual measure and peak rail fares are already the highest in Europe the government proposes that a single increase in rail fares take place of RPI+4% and capped at 10%. This will give greater protection to the consumer and force rail operators into efficiency savings (leasing a newer, more reliable vehicle for example to reduce the cost of maintenance).

    Old (RPI+1% twice per year) - assume RPI is the first percentage below

    2%+1%*2=6%
    3%+1%*2=8%
    4%+1%*2=10%

    New (RPI+4% once per year) - assume RPI is the first percentage below

    2%+4%=6%
    3%+4%=7%
    4%+4%=8%
    5%+4%=9%
    6%+4%=10%

    So you see that when RPI is above target my proposed system leads to a lower rice in the rail fairs than the new one.

    Currently Network Rail is a public unfunded liability which still takes significant direction from government, this bill brings Network Rail under the direct remit of government. This bill also highlights the responsibilities and procedures carried out by Network Rail with regards to fault and tenders.

    Further reading..

    McNulty Report
    http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...il-summary.pdf

    Differing solutions
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...e-alternatives

    Command Paper
    http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...r-railways.pdf

    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Slightly in favour but this means that the profitable lines will be run by private enterprise and the unprofitable ones will be government run. I'd prefer either the companies who take the most profitable lines take one some loss makers too or government takes over all lines.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Slightly in favour but this means that the profitable lines will be run by private enterprise and the unprofitable ones will be government run. I'd prefer either the companies who take the most profitable lines take one some loss makers too or government takes over all lines.
    Reduce the number of franchises by making them larger?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Oooh. Socs v Gov - FIGHT!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Slightly in favour but this means that the profitable lines will be run by private enterprise and the unprofitable ones will be government run. I'd prefer either the companies who take the most profitable lines take one some loss makers too or government takes over all lines.
    It shouldn't unless the private operators are incapable of accurately predicting revenues on a line, given its only a few with it overstated rather than understated it merely has to be asked why those few were overstated

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Reduce the number of franchises by making them larger?
    Could accept that depending how it worked.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I think Part III.2 should specify that we're talking about targets defined by what the TOC promised in it's bid.


    I consider this to be superior, at least, to the status quo and a reform worthy of the sort of government this one promised it would be. Provisionally, (that is until a bunch of holes are revealed ) Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Abstain. Please don't use emojis in your future legislation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. *Cherry picking of the best services and multiple operators still on the same route.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Abstain. Please don't use emojis in your future legislation.
    Have you ever heard of this thing called automation?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Abstain. Please don't use emojis in your future legislation.
    Ha. I can assure you that i never intended that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A Tory bill, that I like?

    Some good stuff there I have to admit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    A Tory bill, that I like?

    Some good stuff there I have to admit.
    We tend to be good with the railways

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    A Tory bill, that I like?

    Some good stuff there I have to admit.
    The left often struggle to know what to think with my bills.

    The stench of pragmatism within a capitalist framework intoxicates you.



    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Oooh. Socs v Gov - FIGHT!
    I've pre-prepared a response to any detractors although i'm mildly optimistic that TDA may come round since Aph has..



    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I think Part III.2 should specify that we're talking about targets defined by what the TOC promised in it's bid.

    I consider this to be superior, at least, to the status quo and a reform worthy of the sort of government this one promised it would be. Provisionally, (that is until a bunch of holes are revealed ) Aye.
    Will do. I'm tempted to have the regulator impose stringent targets actually but i'm wary because of the amount of delays caused by Network Rail.

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Abstain. Please don't use emojis in your future legislation.
    Any reason for the Abstain rather than an Aye.

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Nay. *Cherry picking of the best services and multiple operators still on the same route.
    Having two operators was the point. It introduces direct competition and allows for the benefits that brings in tandem with the other measures in the bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Any reason for the Abstain rather than an Aye.
    The main reason at the moment is costing. Hiring various directors for example is not going to be cheap but I can't see a figure of how much this would cost. Also, I think having 2 operators at the same time could create conflict. However, I admire the effort in this bill and it is certainly one of the better Government bills I have seen.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    The main reason at the moment is costing. Hiring various directors for example is not going to be cheap but I can't see a figure of how much this would cost. Also, I think having 2 operators at the same time could create conflict. However, I admire the effort in this bill and it is certainly one of the better Government bills I have seen.
    Convention in the Mhoc is that you don't need to cost unless it exceeds £100m.

    Not really a problem. If you take a route where there are say trains every ten minutes then this just means that Virgin operate the services at 00, 20 and 40 with First operating the service at 10, 30 and 50 so no conflict really since signal operators are the only people who'll have to deal with the order if one is delayed. Meanwhile we'll get the benefits of them competing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Convention in the Mhoc is that you don't need to cost unless it exceeds £100m.

    Not really a problem. If you take a route where there are say trains every ten minutes then this just means that Virgin operate the services at 00, 20 and 40 with First operating the service at 10, 30 and 50 so no conflict really since signal operators are the only people who'll have to deal with the order if one is delayed. Meanwhile we'll get the benefits of them competing.
    Ah ok. :yy:

    Surely it would be easier though if one operator did the morning and one did the afternoon?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Ah ok. :yy:

    Surely it would be easier though if one operator did the morning and one did the afternoon?
    That doesn't introduce competition except in a small minority of cases where travel would be near the changing point and the exact time of travel is unimportant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Ah ok. :yy:

    Surely it would be easier though if one operator did the morning and one did the afternoon?
    By having two operators near enough other you allow them to compete on price and rolling stock. It may be that Virgin set their price a few pound lower or let children travel free while First put on an extra carriage with more leg room.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    By having two operators near enough other you allow them to compete on price and rolling stock. It may be that Virgin set their price a few pound lower or let children travel free while First put on an extra carriage with more leg room.
    You would allow them to compete but if a Virgin train breaks down on the line for example, First would lose income and this could create major tensions. Also, if a third operator is created that offers commuters a better service, would they be allowed to operate?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 29, 2016
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.