Great Western Coffee Shop

... what people will read on the train

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/confidential.jpg)

............is it the details of how much compensation FGW receive from NR, or perhaps the full breakdown of the cost of FGW's vanity......sorry rebranding project to GWR???  ;)

You've yet to provide a source for the ^12.5m quote you used the other day.

Out of interest, can anyone explain why it is that any project with a budget of more than 3s 6d gets labelled a 'vanity' project?

No. But is it, perhaps, related to the way any spending (such as rebranding) that you don't approve of is "paid for by passengers through higher fares", while something you do like (such as running a train you use, though hardly anyone else does, so it runs at a thumping great loss) can be "paid for out of the company's exorbitant profits"?

Of course one benefit of the rebranding is that if the franchise changes hands the new franchisee will not have to spend a fortune repainting brand new trains, not to mention stations etc., because they are in First's corporate colours. 

That was the reason for the Scot Rail rebranding changing to the current livery which meant when First lost the franchise the new franchise holder olly needed to replace a few vinyl labels (well probably quite a lot of them).  That must have been a considerable saving.

 

It was the figure given by Private Eye's "Signal Failures" correspondent. Happy to be corrected if an Insider such as yourself has a different figure with source? Similarly as to my assertion that it's a vanity project, happy to be corrected by anyone who can advise the improvements to service the rebranding is providing in returning the service to its "former glory" as the First Group blurb puts it?

Thanks for that, must be accurate if it's in Private Eye! ::) As I said it's a shame we don't have a breakdown of how much of whatever was spent was wasted money and how much would have had to be spent anyway. I suspect it's weighted heavily towards the latter.

Whatever was spent must've made financial sense to First Group, even if not recouped for several years.  It's obviously a long term decision and won't/can't bear much fruit until upgrades are complete and new trains are in service.

If only I was a betting man, I would have had a flutter on a sarcastic response along the lines of "it must be accurate if it's in (select whichever publication was cited, add optional swivelling eyes)", I could be ^12 million richer by now!  ;D

My other question was regarding the service improvements which this ^12 million creates (we'll stick to it unless/until someone comes up with another figure), rather than how long it'll take First Group to recoup it?

That depends completely on whether the alleged ^12.5m partly covers the cost of refurbishing several fleets of trains or whether that was what they spent on replacing letterheads etc.?  As I said it's obviously a long-term initiative, though I totally agree that some of the wording on the press releases/posters is pretty ridiculous.

You mean whether it included things like:

• refurbishing the Sleeper Trains
• refurbishing the interior of the first class

and  with the GWR branding and things like that?

Yes, money that would have been spent anyway.  You also have to factor in whether it covers the cost of advertising (and what additional revenue might result from it), the positive effect it might (or might not) have on staff attitudes, the positive effect moving away from the First brand might have on the media and the public (no more Worst Late Western etc.).  It really has to be judged over many criteria and over many years, rather than just taking the easy option of saying it was simply a vanity project that was a complete waste of ^12.5m or whatever it was.

One thing I'm pretty sure of though is that it's been an inauspicious start with the current electrification difficulties, and perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, the powers that be would have waited another year or so.

Or simply waited until a full fat franchise was let. It does seem rather profligate to rebrand for a period of just 54 months. Refurbishments could have been done in existing colours. The toxic word 'First' could have been quietly dropped from the FGW brand.

Yes, that would've been another option, but then all the new trains would've had to be repainted not long after delivery/cascade/refurbishment.  Waste of money accusations would no doubt have flown then too.

Then again perhaps they will anyway when a new franchisee is awarded it!

As per Scotrail, I think it'll be just vinyl changes at franchise change going forward.

Despite rumours and misinformation to to contrary, the DfT are yet to specify house colours in any franchise agreement they tender. Current ITTs don't force a franchise bidder to go with a particular livery.

It's only Transport Scotland who've made such a decision.

Well, there wouldn't be yet, would there? :-)

The only TOC to repaint in non-TOC colours are still in their franchise & the DfT is yet to retender.

Ok.  But, it still makes sense.  And DfT might have welcomed it even if they did not specify it!

Or even 'encouraged' it.....

You'll probably find that a considerable lump of the ^12.5 million was spent on the services of an advertising/marketing agency - these type of people charge large amounts of money to come up with the vapid pap you highlight on the press releases/posters..........money well spent indeed.

So not for at least 9 years then? Based on current ITTs.

I confidently predict that there will be no such 'house colour' provision in future ITTs awarded by the DfT following expiration of current franchises, current direct awards or current extensions.

How do they 'encourage' bidders to do something without specifying it explicitly?

Sir Humphrey Appleby would have mentioned it to some senior executive that the inclusion of such a point in their bid would be looked on favourably.

Yes Minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bed_of_Nails_(Yes_Minister))

.............I hope you're not suggesting that Civil servants would act inappropriately in procurement matters? (Perhaps in the hope of future Non executive positions?) ;)

Not at all - they might merely point out that such a provision in such a short term bid, would be favoured since it would be seen as offering value for money to the taxpayer in avoiding unnecessary costs for the winner of the next franchise.

I thought this got thoroughly aired before, by reference to the franchise agreement. However, I can't find it now. I would have had a futile attempt to find it using the so-called "search" function, but as SQL is currently very unwell I can't do that either.

Anyway, it's in Schedule 14.2 - which I'll quote in its entirety if you like. But the key bit is at the beginning, where it says:

I wonder how proud Eversheds are of "distinctive get-up" as legal terminology - but it does appear to cover a colour associated with the operator as a company, not with this railway.

The text goes on to say that the operator must not hand over assets with any of this branding that the successor cannot use, or else it must pay for "covering such Marks or otherwise removing all indications of or reference to the Marks in a manner reasonably acceptable to the Secretary of State." This isn't just about trains, either:
I guess that could even extend to the overall colour scheme of the stations too, not just signage, if that was too "corporate".

I can see several grey areas here - such as what about such "marks" applied before this franchise (I have not looked at their first one), or applied now but in the same colours as before, or almost the same colour but a bit darker. As in everything else, DfT have set themselves up as arbiter in any disputes between operators, so presumably they would have been consulted as to how they were minded to decide such matters. Of course a lot of the trains will be new, so unless they are left in Hitachi White some colour has to be chosen.

So this would apply to the FGW Pink and Blue livery which is clearly First Group Livery, but it would not apply necessarily to the GWR branding which First may be prepared to pass to a subsequent franchisee, or to the Green colour without the GWR branding.  I seem to recall the GWR name as a brand belongs to DfT in some form. 

The GWR logo was registered (UK00003064468) by First in their name. They might offer it for transfer, or rely on its removal by peeling it off; though quite what they would do with it with no franchise I can't imagine. I don't see why they should need to make that public, at least not for a while yet.