|
Title: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Chris from Nailsea on May 11, 2009, 21:03:13 Shortfall of ^238m if First Group ditches franchise
Quote The government's railway budget is threatening to unravel amid crisis talks over franchises and the revelation that First Great Western can walk away from a 10-year deal without footing the entire ^1.1bn bill. The franchise system, where train operators pay the government to run services on certain routes, is under mounting financial pressure after National Express confirmed it was holding urgent talks about its ^1.4bn contract. Stagecoach is also in dispute with ministers about the terms of its ^1.2bn South West Trains deal, as operators struggle to meet demanding payment schedules amid faltering ticket sales. First Group's First Great Western contract is worth ^1.1bn to the government but the majority of the payments - ^826.6m - will fall due only if FGW accepts a three-year extension to the deal, taking it to 10 years in length. There is widespread industry speculation that First Group will avoid the ^826.6m bill by ending the contract in 2013, after the first seven years. The Department for Transport confirmed that FGW can avoid paying the full ^1.1bn. "The FGW franchise is a seven-year franchise which will finish in March 2013. It contains a clause allowing the franchisee to extend their contract for three years, to March 2016," said a DfT spokesman. For the full article, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/10/first-group-rail-expansion-budget Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Timmer on May 11, 2009, 21:33:37 This was raised as something that could possibly happen when the franchise was awarded to First back in 2006. However, if they did then I'm sure they could forget being awarded a new franchise for a very long time.
With a number of TOCs talking to the government about their franchises at the moment, you do begin to wonder if we are about to witness the beginning of the end of this current way of running Britain's railways. Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Btline on May 11, 2009, 21:42:03 If FG hand the keys in, who will pick them up? Virgin? Arriva? Govia?
Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: r james on May 11, 2009, 22:52:10 I suspect it wont be arriva,as they would be the only franchise operating in the whole of south wales then.
Worst still... we might see some HSTs swapped with XC for voyagers!! Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: devon_metro on May 11, 2009, 22:55:49 First Group own a number of the HST sets too. That might be interesting ;D
Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: vacman on May 11, 2009, 23:48:02 If FG hand the keys in, who will pick them up? Virgin? Arriva? Govia? It will be tendered out again so we couldn't possibly even guess who would get it, arriva may get it, so what if they own everything in S.Wales, NX have everything in the East!!!!Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Mookiemoo on May 11, 2009, 23:51:45 ok - slightly off and on topic
Is the FGW problem the fact that they offer local and stopping services in the same area. I think of Virgin Their WCML is stictly intercity - london midland offer the intermediate trains and london overground the true stoppers I suspect although I do not know for certain the same may be true in other areas. If the problem the same train company is trying to do two things at the same time Maybe mergin thames and FGW was not a good idea - however they did need to srot out the route overlap issue (howevr I do remember when it was thames trains - if you got a turbo on a thames route up the cotwolds line, it was always a 166) Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: IndustryInsider on May 12, 2009, 00:23:17 Is the FGW problem the fact that they offer local and stopping services in the same area. I think of Virgin Their WCML is stictly intercity - london midland offer the intermediate trains and london overground the true stoppers Not sure what FGW problem you're referring to, but if it's the problem with the franchise commitment then, no. The problem is that FGW overbid badly for the franchise assuming that the economy wouldn't go tits-up. The greedy Government saw lots of money flooding back into their coffers. A similar thing happened at NXEA. Nobody has actually handed back any keys. Nobody is saying that First Group would be breaching the agreement if they don't take the extra three years. As for services offered, take a look at how Virgin and LM have tumbled down the punctuality tables over the last years. Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Mookiemoo on May 12, 2009, 00:27:26 Is the FGW problem the fact that they offer local and stopping services in the same area. I think of Virgin Their WCML is stictly intercity - london midland offer the intermediate trains and london overground the true stoppers Not sure what FGW problem you're referring to, but if it's the problem with the franchise commitment then, no. The problem is that FGW overbid badly for the franchise assuming that the economy wouldn't go tits-up. The greedy Government saw lots of money flooding back into their coffers. A similar thing happened at NXEA. Nobody has actually handed back any keys. Nobody is saying that First Group would be breaching the agreement if they don't take the extra three years. As for services offered, take a look at how Virgin and LM have tumbled down the punctuality tables over the last years. Im just thinking about the on going conflict between long distance requirements and peak commuters and the fact that FGW have high capacity on long distance HST services that can then morph to commuters closer to london It seems - from my perspective - they do OK on both but neither really well Lng distance and commuter servicesz are to totally different beasts Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: IndustryInsider on May 12, 2009, 00:37:43 That's just the nature of the route. Having a hugely busy junction station so near London in Reading means the majority of long distance trains have to stop there. And the number of people who commute from Reading (or whom change onto a London train at Reading) is largely the reason the HST's needed the extra seats in the first place.
To use your example of London Midland though, I think If you ask the commuters of Northampton, Berkhampstead, Hemel and the like what they think of their current service, they'd much prefer the current level of LTV performance from FGW. Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Timmer on May 12, 2009, 06:58:06 First Group own a number of the HST sets too. That might be interesting ;D That may prove to be a vital bargaining chip when it comes to First offering Dft them running the franchise on a management contract basis for the last three years as without those HSTs there won't be enough stock to run the entire franchise without them as SET won't be ready by 2013.Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: r james on May 12, 2009, 11:40:53 Im sure its been explained before.. but when the IEP sets are ordered for the Great Western route, will there be suffucient to replace every single HST... or will it only be to replace the HSTs whihch First rent, not incluyding the ones they purchased?
Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Tim on May 13, 2009, 16:56:43 [ The problem is that FGW overbid badly for the franchise assuming that the economy wouldn't go tits-up. The greedy Government saw lots of money flooding back into their coffers. True (and even more true wrt some other TOCS). But I don't see what the solution is. The Government could refuse to accept "overbids" but all that that would mean is that the tax payer gets a worse deal (effectively tax payers money would be used to bribe the TOCs to stay in the game). Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' Post by: Chris from Nailsea on May 13, 2009, 21:46:06 The solution, according to the Socialist Party, is re-nationalisation: see http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7280
Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: devon_metro on May 13, 2009, 22:13:07 well they would say that wouldn't they!!!
Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: paul7575 on May 14, 2009, 11:54:37 Im sure its been explained before.. but when the IEP sets are ordered for the Great Western route, will there be suffucient to replace every single HST... or will it only be to replace the HSTs whihch First rent, not incluyding the ones they purchased? I think it is in another thread,but couldn't find it easily, so I'll repeat the numbers from the ITT, page15 refers: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/iepinvitationtotender.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/iepinvitationtotender.pdf) The tender calls for a number of daily diagrams, so you'd expect at least 10% more physical trains, and of course there are full length and half length trains, helpfully they list 'full length equivalents'. GWML Phase 1 Self power 24 Full Bi-mode 38 Half (19 Full equivalent) GWML Phase 2 Self power 15 Full Bi-mode 3 Half (1.5 Full equivalent) So that is 80 (59.5 full equivalent) daily diagrams, so probably equates to about 88 (66 full equivalent) trains, which compares favourably with the number of HSTs, I think. Paul Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: devon_metro on May 14, 2009, 12:30:43 Quite frankly, the system is way too complicated.
Whats wrong with building locos/powercars and sticking whatever formation of coaches you require in between??? Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Btline on May 14, 2009, 18:18:13 And why is GWML getting bi-mods?
Great, even slower journey times.... Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: paul7575 on May 14, 2009, 18:50:58 And why is GWML getting bi-mods? Great, even slower journey times.... At the risk of stating the obvious, even if there is wiring to Reading, Bristol or even Cardiff by then, they'll still need diesel to get further away, to places like Oxford, Worcester, Newbury, Exeter, Swansea etc, AFAICS. However, all the indications are that a bi-mode half set will not have a problem with speed, as its single diesel power car is only towing 4 coaches. It's the full length bi-mode that is expected to be underpowered off the wires, according to some recent articles. Paul Title: Re: 'Fears grow for future of rail expansion' - from the Guardian, 10 May 2009 Post by: Btline on May 14, 2009, 19:11:40 But the wires won't be up! We'll be lucky if they are up as far as Reading. And I think running a full diesel is better than having to switch power supply at Reading.
If the wires do go up, they should go up all the way. So in that case, only the electric version would be needed (with Thunderbirds for diversions and loco changes for occasional extensions) This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |