Great Western Coffee Shop

Network Rail considers that in relation to the proposed Vehicle Change Network Rail should be entitled to compensation (as defined in Condition F3.2) from FGW for the consequences of the implementation of the change. Class 142 vehicles were previously removed from, what is now, the Western Route due to the high level of damage the vehicles caused to the track - an issue that was highlighted to the DfT during the franchise process. In order to mitigate the risks associated with this damage Network Rail wishes to implement the recommendations of the relevant standard (NR/SP/TRK/8006) and pass on to FGW the one-off costs incurred as a result.

To the extent that the information provided in the FGW^s proposal for Vehicle Change (issued under Condition F2) has enabled Network Rail to assess the likely effect of the proposed change, a statement of the amount of compensation required (calculated in accordance with the requirements of Condition F3) and the means by which the compensation should be paid is shown in Appendix A to this letter. The details of these costs were initially provided as part of the Preliminary Response (22 October 2007) and an updated copy is supplied as an Excel spreadsheet at Appendix B.

Class 142 vehicles are also notorious for causing squealing noises on curves which lead to complaints from the public and their representatives. As part of this Vehicle Change Network Rail requires FGW to be accountable for the costs and conscientious processing of any such complaints generated by the operation of these vehicles.

Finally, Class 142 vehicles have historically been prone to incidents of low adhesion. This is attributed to the axle configuration rather than any railhead condition. As part of this Vehicle Change Network Rail requires FGW to take steps to mitigate against such incidents and be responsible for any failure to do so.

In order to mitigate the risks associated with this damage Network Rail wishes to implement the recommendations of the relevant standard (NR/SP/TRK/8006) and pass on to FGW the one-off costs incurred as a result.

The operator bids for the stock it intends to use on the franchise. Clearly FGW always intended to re-introduce pacers

When an operator compiles its bid, it needs to indicate to DfT what rolling stock it intends to use. Therefore it follows that FGW must have declared the use of pacers in its bid

FGW always say that the 142's were a last resort but they under-estimated the amount of stock they needed so didn't bother renewing the lease on the 158's so Northern got them and then FGW realised they needed more stock so they had to get the 142's because they couldn't keep the 158's.

So FGW only have themselves to blame on this one then and its not DaFT forcing them to give the stock up?

He also said that they [...] made mistakes predicting the amount of rolling stock they would need, and failed to acquire replacements when they realised the mistake.

John Curley pretty much admitted that at the NDRUG AGM:

When Kevin Gale, Director of Operations was asked why they were using Class 142s on the devon branches, he answered 'because they are cheap'!