GWR boss out of touch with its problems, says Labour MP

[whole diary]

[Reginald25]

My own view is that it is always more helpful, and has more impact, to make a statement in calm words and certainly not to use doubtfall words. It may seem funny but it detracts from the point being made.

[TonyK]

A Labour MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) complaining about a leadership being out of touch with the organisation's problems is just asking for trouble. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.

As for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), yes, there have been many variations from the plan sprung upon them at short notice. The "pause" in the electrification programme with the consequent requirement for extra diesel engines in the 9-car trains,  turned the introduction of the IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) from a carefully planned roll-out to chaos. Then the introduction of the new timetable last year didn't go well, although GWR's troubles there were much less than other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company). We know that a railway is subject to the butterfly / hurricane effect as well as political interference, and maybe one day someone impartial will sit down and write an account of what went wrong, why, and because of whom. On past experience, though, I doubt that lessons would be learned fully.

In the meantime, there is one small change that I would like to see - the removal of the words "Thank you for your patience" in announcements and posters when things go bosoms skywards. I have some virtues, but patience isn't one of them.

[theabsentmindedprofessor]

Count the number of times the head of Scots Rail has come out and publicly apologised for the issues that they are facing under the same circumstances. Then compare that to the number of times Mr Hopwood has done the same thing.

I fully appreciate the circumstances that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are under from the engineering difficulties faced by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and the strategic decisions made by the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport). However, GWR's responsibility lies in its communications of the issues and mitigation of the issues. In those areas over the last few years, I believe it has been found wanting.

So all the investment GWR has put in to its stakeholder relationships, including regular meetings, or offers of meetings with MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), and local authorities, not to mention the public communications - especially around the planned disruption is evidence of being found wanting?

in my experience many MPs, and others have unknowingly some level of unconsious bias regarding the railway.  They have theories and views that no amount of information will sway them from.  Perhaps it goes with the territory of being an MP, general reluctance safe for a few notable exceptions, to accept a contrary view to the position you stand by

[grahame]

So all the investment GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has put in to its stakeholder relationships, including regular meetings, or offers of meetings with MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), and local authorities, not to mention the public communications - especially around the planned disruption is evidence of being found wanting?

in my experience many MPs, and others have unknowingly some level of unconsious bias regarding the railway.  They have theories and views that no amount of information will sway them from.  Perhaps it goes with the territory of being an MP, general reluctance safe for a few notable exceptions, to accept a contrary view to the position you stand by

Perhaps the question to ask might be "what motivates the MP(s)".  For those in parties who support denationalisation, it rather sticks in their throats to congratulate a private company on doing something right - even if it's doing a superb job. For any MP who has a group of constituents poorly served, even if most are happy, what an excellent opportunity to win the poorly served votes, and the votes of those who never use the train but will see the good local press (s)he gets for working for and perhaps sorting out the group.

[TaplowGreen]

Count the number of times the head of Scots Rail has come out and publicly apologised for the issues that they are facing under the same circumstances. Then compare that to the number of times Mr Hopwood has done the same thing.

I fully appreciate the circumstances that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are under from the engineering difficulties faced by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and the strategic decisions made by the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport). However, GWR's responsibility lies in its communications of the issues and mitigation of the issues. In those areas over the last few years, I believe it has been found wanting.

So all the investment GWR has put in to its stakeholder relationships, including regular meetings, or offers of meetings with MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), and local authorities, not to mention the public communications - especially around the planned disruption is evidence of being found wanting?

I appreciate that the bar was set pretty low before, but these activities are expected as part of BAU, it isn't "investment" it's just normal operational expenditure. Customer Service, which includes a large part of communication, is still pretty appalling, and the "Boss" seems hopelessly out of touch with this and his customers expectations, unless you/he feel that taking weeks/months to close down pretty straightforward correspondence is acceptable? (a scenario that has now been going on for well over 18 months)

[theabsentmindedprofessor]

Count the number of times the head of Scots Rail has come out and publicly apologised for the issues that they are facing under the same circumstances. Then compare that to the number of times Mr Hopwood has done the same thing.

I fully appreciate the circumstances that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are under from the engineering difficulties faced by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and the strategic decisions made by the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport). However, GWR's responsibility lies in its communications of the issues and mitigation of the issues. In those areas over the last few years, I believe it has been found wanting.

So all the investment GWR has put in to its stakeholder relationships, including regular meetings, or offers of meetings with MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament), and local authorities, not to mention the public communications - especially around the planned disruption is evidence of being found wanting?

I appreciate that the bar was set pretty low before, but these activities are expected as part of BAU, it isn't "investment" it's just normal operational expenditure. Customer Service, which includes a large part of communication, is still pretty appalling, and the "Boss" seems hopelessly out of touch with this and his customers expectations, unless you/he feel that taking weeks/months to close down pretty straightforward correspondence is acceptable? (a scenario that has now been going on for well over 18 months)

Don't know about your particular experience, but in my experience GWR do invest, more than some other train operating companies, quite a bit in communications including offers to meet, regularly with MPs, such as Mr Doughty.  Throughout a long career in various bits of the transport industry, public, private, bus, rail, i've had the pleasure of sitting in many a meeting with MPs, and councillors and the level of understanding, and perhaps importantly willingness to understand is truly frightening.

Mr Doughty has form in not wanting to accept a contrary point of view.



He, and many conservative MPs are set a low bar when it com