New Thameslink franchise learns lessons from ICWC fiasco

This from Leo Pink...

According to the Thamelink, Southern and Great Northern invitation to tender:

Publicity
The outcome of a rail franchise competition is of national significance within the United Kingdom and is likely to attract public and media attention. Bidders shall not and shall ensure that their Representatives, Affiliates and their Affiliates’ Representatives shall not (i) issue any press notice, press release or statement in relation to the franchise letting process or their Bid without the prior written consent of the Secretary of State; or (ii) use media or communication channels in a way that might reflect adversely and unfairly on the industry, its participants or the integrity or outcome of the competition.

Quite so.

On no account should the integrity of the DfT be questioned, no matter what the outcome of the competition.

Good to see lessons from the West Coast fiasco have been well and truly learned in Marsham Street!

DG Rail in the firing line?

This from an interview with Philip Rutnam in Civil Service World...

And what about Claire Moriarty, the director-general who oversaw the change programme and is now running the new rail directorate? Didn’t her reforms lead indirectly to the WCM problems? The reforms “made the context within which the department was operating more challenging, no doubt”, he concedes; but he maintains that these “background factors” were no more than contributory elements to a complex mix of causes. “It’s not as simple as saying: ‘It was the cause’,” Rutnam concludes.

Well worth a read.

The Case of the Missing Question

This from our man at 221b Baker Street...

Mornin' Holmes, have you seen the Public Accounts Committee report on the Intercity West Coast franchise debacle? It makes most interesting reading.

Indeed I have, Watson, and it is a tribute to the forensic abilities of the Committee's Chairwoman Margaret Hodge, second only in my estimation of the fairer sex to Eirene Adler. And you will have noticed in the transcript of the evidence session with the DfT Permanent Secretary and his Director General the significance of the question as to why the Department's Contract Awards Committee thought it necessary to impose a Subordinated Loan Facility on Virgin, where the calculations indicated that none was required, whilst at the same time reducing the sizeable SLF for First Group? 

But Holmes, I didn't see that question in the transcript.

That, Watson, is the significance!