The Fact Compiler is advised by an impeccable source that there is raw fury in the DfT over the provisional findings of the CoCo investigation into the Roscos.
A view confirmed by the strongly worded DafT response to the Competition Commission's provisional findings.
So great is the anger in Marsham Street that virtually everyone in the industry receives a kicking including the TOCs.
Indeed one section of the report could almost have been written by Lady Shriti Vadera herself (she who viewed TOCs as "thinly capitalised equity profiteers of the worst kind").
For the benefit of Railway Eye readers the relevant section is repeated in full below:
1.11 It is important to recognise the wider picture. Overall, the Government's total subsidy to the railway is currently running at around £4.2 billion per annum. Government subsidies to the train passenger operators are currently running at the rate of £800 million per annum. In deciding on the optimum length of a franchise, any potential impact on the rolling stock market will tend to be a secondary consideration. Of primary importance will be producing better value
for taxpayers and better performance for passengers. In this context, the experience of long franchises since privatisation is mixed. Long franchises have often failed to deliver the anticipated outcomes and in a number of high profile cases have had severe adverse consequences for government.
The following may be considered to be "long franchises": Chiltern, C2C, Connex South Eastern, Virgin West Coast and Virgin Cross Country.
That Connex (now Veolia) screwed up is undoubtedly true but the Fact Compiler is struggling to think of others.
Both Virgin franchises were skewered by the fiasco of Railtrack's over ambitious West Coast Mainline Upgrade, whilst Chiltern and C2C are generally held to have done well.
So who on earth can the frothing boys and girls at DafT be referring to when they claim a "number of high profile cases have had severe adverse consequences for government?"
Names and examples please.
