The CTC has since 1878 provided a voice for cyclists in shaping transport policy and provision, and today represents some 70,000 members and affiliates mostly based in the UK. The use of the bicycle as transport, and its value as a complementary mode to public transport are key areas in which CTC and its members press for recognition and implementation of policy and projects.

What should be the purpose of passenger rail franchising?

  The experience of the recently tendered franchises is that they are very negative in their position with regard to growing and developing rail services, and focus in many cases in retrenchment and minimum price options. This often hits our members as the awarded franchises tend to move away from flexibility and versatility which rail offers and the desirability of a system which can handle both commuter, business and leisure travel.

How well does the process for awarding franchises work?

  The experience here, in theory has been one of improving prospects.

What input do operators, passengers and other interested parties have into the design of franchised services?

  With established franchises there is a huge variation in management style. CTC has found the ability to talk to franchises like SWTrains (Stagecoach) has provided a valuable input to design of refurbished trains, and development of cycle policy. GNER, Northern Rail, Scotrail and Merseyrail have all been good at delivering, and reacting to our concerns. Notable for their diktat style and reputation for not wanting to talk or listen are the Govia companies, Southern, and South Eastern (and formerly Thameslink).

Has there been a smooth transition of franchising arrangements from the Strategic Rail Authority to the Department for Transport?

  Both smooth and if anything an improved presentation and handling of the invitation to comment.

Are franchise contracts the right size, type and length?

  No, the long franchise for Chiltern shows just what stability can do, but the option for break-points in a long franchise has not been fully exploited. We believe that a long franchise with significant review of progress and the opportunity to have the incumbent in a preferred position to submit a bid to run-on for five or 10 year segments, rather than have the hiatus of a complete shut down and restart, which effectively stops all projects and investment in the run-up to the refranchising. The incumbent would submit their prospectus, and DfT their aspirations for the next period say 18 months ahead of the end of the current agreement, and if this delivers appropriately, the franchise would be extended, if not, bids would be invited to take-over the franchise, and the incumbent invited to sharpen their pencils.

Do franchise holders deliver value for money to passengers and the Government throughout the duration of their contracts?

  No, most notably from the reports of cyclists refused travel on almost empty trains when Southern management went for a rigorous curfew on cycles on the London-Brighton line for six hours per day. CTC and affiliated groups were astounded that Southern were driving away regular commuters (in some cases making it almost impossible to carry on working and commuting by rail) with an average annual payment of £2,300 per cyclist, all when the company received over £71 million to run the services (ie government subsidy used to run empty trains whilst potential users were being refused access).

Are risks suitably apportioned between the Government and franchise holders?

  We cannot comment in detail, but the arguments by franchisees against investment to deliver effective cycle-rail integration suggests that the long term investment and related risks are not being addressed effectively by the current arrangements.

What is the scope for improving services through franchise agreements?

  This is the way to improve services, as effectively it is the agreement the Government has with the franchisees to deliver the rail service. However, the ability of a franchisee to exploit a new market or work outside the basic service specified by the franchise seems to be too severely constrained.

Do we need more competition and vertical integration?

  The SRA Rolling Stock Consultation allowed us to suggest that there could be no reason that the three Rolling Stock Companies have the exclusive rights to supply the operators with trains, and operators should be able to buy trains, plus mini RoSCos and leasing from EU-based companies should be possible, so that specialist vehicles can be provided, and a genuinely competitive supply sourced should be able to exist with the ability to provide specialist trains for special traffic.

Is franchising compatible with open access operations?

  It would be very useful to have choice, and the ability to run a special service for a special event or traffic is seriously limited by the control which the regulator and principal operator can exercise—examples could include running a special service to get cyclists away home from Brighton after the annual BHF cycle ride, where the principal operator dictates no bikes on any trains (even if other operators can offer this).

  The extreme in the other direction is to guard against contra is predatory operations, and the bus industry has the position of not registering services which directly compete. In this way an operator who does not deliver to a market, by shortening trains and pricing out or otherwise driving away custom, may find another operator able to move in and offer a better service for that specific market.

Should train, rolling stock and track operation be more closely integrated?

  There is certainly a need for this. The limitation on a train operator modifying the layout of trains to suit the actual needs of their customers is constrained by the need to hand the trains back in a specified condition, and the near cartel conditions relating to the leasing of rolling stock.

  Some services are curtailed or otherwise dictated (ie short trains to save on access charges) by the way the market is organised at present. Additional vehicles/space for carrying bikes and luggage on a train carries a greater penalty than the small cost of hauling an extra coach making the decisions on running trains with greater flexibility in the ability to carry a variety of traffic and widely varying numbers on commuter lines (especially in SE England) a per train charge might be more appropriate. It is pointed out that by vehicle count (64 per night of which 32 do not call to set down passengers) Scotrail incur charges similar to the local train operator at Preston Station, as the latter only use one and two-coach DMU's.

8 July 2006