Britain’s rail franchise model unfit for purpose
Parliamentary committee report claims current model is failing train passengers with high fares and poor performance
Does this mean the Melbourne model should be reviewed ?Yes, regardless of what the Poms do or think.
Britain’s rail franchise model unfit for purpose
Also, what the hell are they talking about with creating completion? They make it sound like people can choose which train franchisee to use like you can choose which dish soap to buy.The competition in the British system is at the time of the franchise bidding.
I think what we have here isn't really franchising. It is called that and dressed up like that, but in reality it is just outsourcing, just like governments would outsource any other services.Correct, the UK's DfT would not call the MTM contract a franchise, but a management contract. TfL would call it a concession.
So if we view things in that light, how does the discussion change?It says that the Victorian government needs to do a better job next time the metropolitan system goes out to tender, and a better job supervising the next operator once they are in place.
Tend to agree, remember Kennent said that the private operators could make PT cash flow neutral so I'm sure if you are set up to fail from the start you get the results. It may take a few contract renewals to get to something that is better suited to Melbourne and yields realistic results.I think what we have here isn't really franchising. It is called that and dressed up like that, but in reality it is just outsourcing, just like governments would outsource any other services.Correct, the UK's DfT would not call the MTM contract a franchise, but a management contract. TfL would call it a concession.
The two TfL concessions (London Overground operated by Arriva Rail London, and Crossrail operated by MTR Corporation Crossrail Ltd) are quite good, despite their parent corporations also owning other train operators which are quite sh1te (Arriva owns Northern, and MTR owns MTM). It just goes to show that the main influence is from the body issuing the contract, not the company winning the contract.So if we view things in that light, how does the discussion change?It says that the Victorian government needs to do a better job next time the metropolitan system goes out to tender, and a better job supervising the next operator once they are in place.
Overall I don't object to the what they have done in Melbourne, but I don't think its delivered huge benefits to the taxpayer as Kennet's govt did most of the hard work before they offloaded it but I suspect it has helped implement alot of change. Meanwhile the govt owned V/line running parallel to the private operators isn't really demonstrating govt ownership is delivering better results.I tend to agree it is not a public verses private operation is the issue, but rather the strategic direction set by the government for public transport (with how much they are willing to spend) AND the management (therefore the implementation) AND the culture of the workforce.
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.