Great Western Coffee Shop

Whether you agree with the planned 'fare strikes' or not, they certainly have the media's attention which isn't good news for FGW

Why not try and help FGW or something, publicise the FACTs and stop making the situation worse.

I'd love to be able to set up a site that took all alterations and said EXACTLY why it was late as often FGW are too vague.

was it not about 6 153s FGW Took off lease last year, and now they have got about 12 more units so to my reckoning thats more stock!!!
And as for stuff going up, so has petrol, so has food in the supermarket, and so will council tax....people need to get a life and stop moaning!!!!!!!!!!!1

Correct me if i am wrong but was it not the dft that reallocated those 158s up North, and not fgw taking them off lease, fgw wanted to keep them and sucessfully held on to them for another year.
prehaps our fellow posters more up on rolling stock can clear this one up??

The reason stories like this appear is it's a FACT that tomorrow fares increase, in some cases considerably and its also a FACT that services are cancelled, overcrowded or short formed all too often. FACT was FGW reduced the amount of rolling stock that was operating on Wessex services which has made things the way they are today and have admitted that they committed to letting too much stock go at the start of the franchise.

I agree that it would be great if FGW were more forthcoming with the reason why a service is cancelled/short run rather than saying 'due to a member of train crew being unavailable' which leads you to the conclusion that they don't have enough staff to run their trains even when at times that may not be the case that a member of the traincrew isn't available because of something more serious happening.

(numbers from 2001 I believe?)

a few of your FACTS are incorrect old pal, DFT specify fares increases, DFT specify rolling stock allocation, FACT the DFT provided the rather sparse passenger figures to FG before they bid for the franchise (numbers from 2001 I believe?), HOWEVER, FGW are totally to blame for the complete incompetence of resources/rosters which were centralised and are causing hundreds of cancellations due to "a member of train crew being unavailiable" and they need to sort it asap!

Another way of looking at it would be this :

WEST FLEET UNDER WESSEX :

Class 143 - 8 units, 832 seats.
Class 150 - 25 units, 3475 seats.
Class 153 - 15 units, 1125 seats.
Class 158 (2 - coach) - 12 units, 1680 seats.
Class 158 (3 - coach) - 9 units, 1971 seats.

TOTAL UNITS - 69
TOTAL CARRIAGES - 132
TOTAL SEATS - 9083

WEST FLEET - FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FGW AND DFT :

Class 143 - 8 units, 832 seats.
Class 150 - 17 units, 2363 seats.
Class 153 - 10 units, 750 seats.
Class 158 (2 - coach) - 22 units, 3080 seats.
Class 158 (3 - coach) - 1 unit, 219 seats.

TOTAL UNITS - 58
TOTAL CARRIAGES - 107
TOTAL SEATS - 7244

CURRENT WEST FLEET

Class 142 - 12 units, 1452 seats.
Class 143 - 8 units, 832 seats.
Class 150 - 19 units, 2639 seats.
Class 153 - 12 units, 900 seats.
Class 158 (2 - coach) - 20 units, 2800 seats.
Class 158 (3 - coach) - 1 unit, 219 seats.

TOTAL UNITS - 72
TOTAL CARRIAGES - 133
TOTAL SEATS - 8842

CAVEATS :

1)   Class 142 units are assumed to have 121 seats per unit (source - Angel Trains.) I am told that some may have less.

2)   Class 150/1 units are assumed to have 138 seats per unit (source - Angel Trains.) I am told that some have 124 seats per unit.

CONCLUSION :

1) FGW have 14 more units, 26 more carriages, and 1598 more seats in the West Fleet than was set down in the Franchise Agreement.

2) FGW have 3 more units, 1 more carriage, and 241 less seats (best case scenario) in the West fleet than Wessex had.

3) Wessex aimed for around 84% fleet availability, whereas FGW appear to be aiming for around 76%

Firstly, I'm not old so please don't refer to me in that way thanks Vacman.
 
Did I say above that FGW are responsible for today's fare increases? NO However there are some un-regulated fares which they can raise as much as they like. Yes DFT to specify rolling stock allocation which is way below what is required, not just on FGW but on other parts of the rail network in the way that they underwrite the leases between the TOC and the ROSCO but also allow rail companies to run whatever stock they wish at their own risk otherwise why is FGW saying that they are scouring the country looking for any suitable rolling stock?

It was very unfortunate that DFT provided First with completely out of date passenger figures but surely their own surveys would show that the was a pretty good reason why Wessex Trains were running Cardiff-Pompey services as three carriages and not two. Between them DFT and FGW reduced the amount of rolling stock operating on West services at the time of finalizing the new franchise agreement. FGW have to take there share of responsibility for the reduction in rolling stock.

At the end of the day all three of the above FACTS are correct. Fares have increased today yes? Services will be overcrowded, cancelled and short run/formed yes? The only fact that may be up for debate was who was responsible for cutting the amount of rolling stock operated on West services.

FGW did hold their hands up and say they got it wrong, hence why they have fare more units than specified in the franchise, WHY WON'T THE DFT HOLD THEIR HANDS UP AND SAY THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG ASWEL!

Mr Harris (Rail Minister) told the Post: "The number and type of trains on the railway is mainly a matter for train operators."

He added: "Our priority is to ensure there is capacity for the travelling public and we have ensured replacement trains are available."

First Great Western spokesman Lance Cole said: "Nothing is set in stone, but come the December 9 timetable changes, the Pacers will be on the Exeter to Barnstaple line. I am not aware they will be used in the Bristol area in a couple of months time."

"The DfT takes responsibility for taking strategic rolling stock decision and that decision is to give us 12 Pacers."

The ^13m generated by these January 2008 fare rises contribute to the cost of the biggest investment programme of any rail franchise in the UK, designed to help deliver those improvements. Inflation accounts for an additional ^17m.

FGW are unlikely to enforce the law, I'm sure they will let the strike happen as to do anything else will create yet more bad publicity for them. MTLS are not militant, they are using the media to get this subject into the public arena and should be congratulated for that!

FGW are unlikely to enforce the law, I'm sure they will let the strike happen as to do anything else will create yet more bad publicity for them. MTLS are not militant, they are using the media to get this subject into the public arena and should be congratulated for that!

Last year, the vast majority of people I knew who had fare strike tickets also had valid tickets and therefore were not breaking the law.

The point of this campaign is to raise publicity and that's what it's doing quite successfully with all the media interest it has been receiving! Their tactics may not be to your liking but if letter writing etc. has got them nowhere, you can't blame them for using the media in this way to draw attention to the awful service and extortionate fares.

EMT who are removing long distance HSTs from the Sheffield - London services and putting them on Nottingham services, with more stops. Hmm last time i checked, Meridians has acceleration more suited to stopping services.

NO NO NO surely the Daft are whiter than white in all this!!!!!!!!

Old Pal is a tongue in cheek friendly welcome in Cornwall, wasn't refering to your age but if it offended then my appologies  ;),

The "unregulated fares" which I believe Cheap Day Returns are one? Cheap days were dramaticly reduced by FGW in 2006 in most areas, by as much as 60% and in this fare rise most cheap days haven't risen, I do accept that part of the blame is on FGW's doorstep but the DFT are the real villians in this, and the DFT are succeeding in their plan as it is the TOC's that are getting the public criticism, FGW did hold their hands up and say they got it wrong, hence why they have fare more units than specified in the franchise, WHY WON'T THE DFT HOLD THEIR HANDS UP AND SAY THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG ASWEL!

The SLC (Service Level Commitment) for December 2006 on which tenders were invited specified how many services ran between which stations , and where they called at in between (although the bidder was allowed to add extra stops "provided the other requirements of the SLC were met") but did not specify the size of the train fleet or how many carriages / units were to be deployed.

In fact , the size of the train fleet formed part of the franchise agreement reached between the DfT and FGW.

However , in the ITT (invitation to tender) the SRA did set out "the basis on which the Authority developed SLC2 in terms of the assumed class of vehicles, their journey time capability and the diagrammed requirements."

Rolling stock reduction , and the associated subsidy reduction benefits , had been the focus of several SRA - commisioned Jacobs Consultancy reports , on which the SLC was based.

I am also sure that FGW , and the other bidders , were left in no doubt that the size of the train fleet had to be reduced. After all , the "surplus" units had already been promised to other train operating companies.

Where I think that even FGW would admit they got it wrong , was when they underestimated demand in their bid. Having done so , the DfT effectively locked them in to their contractual obligations. It was very telling that when FGW appealed the decision to send the Class 158's north , the DfT turned a distinctly deaf ear to their protests.

I do , however , think that FGW's decision to ask for a change to the Westbury - Swindon section of the SLC (granted by the DfT) , in order to allow them to please Stroud Valley commuters (who already had an hourly service) at the expense of Melksham / TransWilts commuters (who had virtually no service) , while saving themselves having to use an extra unit , was not their finest hour and has earned them the mistrust of quite a few people on the ground.