DfT - Extra Portsmouth-Cardiff Coaches/Services "A Matter For FGW"

[whole diary]

[Lee]

Parliamentary Written Answer :

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will pursue provisions requiring (a) an additional train coach to the current two car unit service operating hourly and (b) a half hourly three car unit service between Portsmouth and Cardiff in the next relevant franchise negotiations; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Harris: Responsibility for delivering a service which meets the standards in the franchise agreement is a matter for First Great Western.

[tramway]

One of the best non-answers I^ve seen for ages, haven^t seen one like that for a little while.

As the question was regarding future franchise negotiations does this mean First are going to be incumbent beyond 7 (+3) years?

Considering the current FLW^▸ (First Late Western (critical term FGW)) situation you would have thought Harris would have received a better briefing than that. Field day for anyone who wishes to take the government up on that one.

The problems re current franchise commitments have been well documented on this site and elsewhere, so I^m wondering why the DafT have once again put Andrew Hains on the spot. I^m beginning to have a great deal of sympathy for the bloke if that^s what he has to deal with, a poison chalice doesn^t come anywhere near describing what running the FLW franchise must be.

[devon_metro]

That just sums up the government who simply don't give a toss!

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are able to get more trains for Northern but its up to us to get more trains to us...

Errrr but didn't you just steal some of out trains.... 

[Shazz]

But wasnt it reccomended in the report done by whichever research company that removing 1 if the cars wouldnt make a difference? 

[Timmer]

Once again DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) say its FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s problem to sort out more rolling stock and not a matter for DaFT. So if FGW said we want to lease some more stock will you underwrite the lease what would they say?

[Lee]

My reading of it is that an MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) who really wanted an answer to his question came up against a minister who didnt want to give one.

Which is a shame really, as the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are due to come up with a national "rolling stock plan" at the end of January. This question provided an ideal opportunity for Harris to pre-announce extra carriages for the Portsmouth-Cardiff line, thus putting the DfT's opponents on the back foot.

That opportunity was not taken.

Further Parliamentary Written Answer :

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate she has made of levels of overcrowding (a) at peak times, (b) at off-peak times and (c) on Saturdays at each station on the Portsmouth to Cardiff via Salisbury rail route in the latest period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Harris: The Department for Transport has made no estimate of the levels of crowding at each station on the Portsmouth to Cardiff rail route.

But wasnt it reccomended in the report done by whichever research company that removing 1 if the cars wouldnt make a difference? 

Jacobs Consultancy questioned the business case for 3 coaches on Portsmouth-Cardiff services.

[Timmer]

But wasnt it reccomended in the report done by whichever research company that removing 1 if the cars wouldnt make a difference? 

Jacobs Consultancy questioned the business case for 3 coaches on Portsmouth-Cardiff services.

And this was the green light DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were looking for to release the 14 158s that left the franchise in December.

I have to be careful here, but one wonders how much damage this consulting exercise has done to our region's rail network and if and its a big IF, that because the FGW franchise was based on the findings of this consultation that it could be the reason that FGW were to possibly lose the franchise in future?

To start with, FGW ran the franchise based on the old FGW franchise model coupled together with the Wessex franchise from April to December 06 and all seemed OK. It was after the December 06 TT change took place with changes made based on the consultation that trouble started including the reduction of Cardiff-Portsmouth 158s back to two carriages. Just think MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain) didn't even exist back then! What has changed so much that passengers feel to take part in the action that is due to take place next Monday? I don't see this happening anywhere else on the rail network, do you?

[John R]

It's interesting to note that in the 4 years of Wessex Trains, passengers on the Wessex services increased by 50%, well above national trends. (Source - Modern Railways published today) I wonder what period was used to come up with the figures, because if it was a couple of years before the franchise terminated, it would have seriously understimated demand, though of course it should have been obvious as it was why Wessex lengthened the trains in the first place (and they had 6 months to do passenger counts after the franchise changed).

I think there is a similar problem emerging with the EM Trains Liverpool to Nottingham service.

[Lee]

Here is what Jacobs Consultancy recommended :

The straw man (Jacobs recommendation) reduces the number of diagrams by 2 ^ compared with May and by 5 compared with December 04. This equates to the same number of vehicles as May but a saving of 9 ^ vehicles compared with December.

The Cardiff to Portsmouth route is, in the May 04 timetable, operated by eight core 2-car diagrams. One additional diagram operates in the peaks and which is used to strengthen the 0600 Portsmouth ^ Cardiff and the 1630 return. In Dec 04 an additional three 2-car class 158 units are allocated to the route in order to provide additional strengthening by adding 1 car to 5 diagrams in order to create 3-car formations. The Business Case justification for these additional vehicles is, however, unclear. The Straw Man provides for three 3-car diagrams, relieving overcrowding on the three busiest peak services in the southbound direction. Northbound only two services fall within the Bath / Bristol peak period and one service is operated with 3 cars.

The through services between Bristol and Brighton require two class 158 vehicles in May and three in December. This reduces back to two in the Straw Man.

The Swindon to Westbury route requires the equivalent of 1 ^ class 153 diagrams ion May and December 04. The Straw Man reduces this to 1 dedicated diagram.

Services between Bristol and Weymouth / Southampton are currently operated by a mixture of class 153 and 150 units. A locomotive-hauled train has been provided for strengthening in the summer timetable, replacing one class 150 diagram on the Weymouth route. This has provided additional accommodation on the Weymouth route and also released a class 150 unit to provide strengthening in Cornwall. In December the locomotive hauled train has been withdrawn and the number of class 158 diagrams increased by one.

The Straw Man specification results in extension of the services from Southampton and Weymouth to Cardiff partly replacing services currently operating from Weston-Super-Mare and Taunton. All services are operated by class 150 units and when the two sets of routes are considered together then the number of diagrammed vehicles is broadly similar.

The route between Worcester / Cheltenham and Taunton is operated exclusively by 90mph class 158 units. The diagramming changes involved in linking the services across Bristol results in a reduction of two vehicles when compared with May and 6 ^ compared with December.

The Severn Beach route is largely operated on a stand-alone basis currently and effectively requires one class 143 unit although there is some interworking of diagrams to avoid successive tight turnrounds. The Weston-Super-Mare to Bristol element of existing service to Cardiff requires the equivalent of two diagrams. Three of the standard paths in each direction on the section between Weston-Super-Mare and Cardiff are currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales and our Straw Man assumes that these will be withdrawn and the gaps filled by Greater Western services. Overall the through hourly services between Weston-Super-Mare and Severn Beach can be operated by the same number of diagrams including filling the gaps vacated by ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))).

The Straw Man was evaluated both against the May 04 timetable and the Pseudo base. The Pseudo base was our emerging view of the December 04 timetable including the committed additional vehicles identified in 4.2 above. The straw man performs well against the May 04 timetable and gives an economic benefit of ^1.6m, with a BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) of 2.56. Against the pseudo base the Straw Man gives a substantial financial and economic benefit, largely due to the savings in ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) costs assumed.

Quote from Insider (link below) :
http://indefenceoffirstgreatwestern.blogspot.com/2007/11/answering-some-questions.html

Part of this included removal of a lot of carriages so that they could be used elsewhere. I'll not blame the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) completely on this one as FGW^▸ (First Great Western) did make some cuts above an beyond what they had to do, partly thanks to all the money the DfT gets paid for the 'priviledge' of us running the franchise.

In February, it became clear that this was a big mistake. We leased some extra trains from TransPennine Express and made some short term deals but most of the trains from TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) are going back in December, hence the appearance of the 142s.

Jacobs recommended the retention of three 3-coach Class 158 diagrams on Portsmouth-Cardiff services, but First only included one 3-coach Class 158 unit in their bid.

[Timmer]

Now I know why FGW^▸ (First Great Western) only have 1 three car 158 because FGW only included 1 unit in their bid when Jacobs recommended 3! Not as many as before but still enough to cover the busiest diagrams.

So maybe in part that this is "A Matter for FGW" though its the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) who are getting all the money being saved by FGW's decision to release more stock then they should have done.

[Lee]

Just in case anyone thinks that I am being one-sided against FGW^▸ (First Great Western), I would also point out that Jacobs did some further optioneering and came up with some extra recommendations :

Linking together of the Bristol ^ Oxford services proposed in the Straw Man with Weston ^ Bristol services, enabling an additional return trip to Oxford in marginal time.

Add back Severn Beach extensions truncated in the Straw Man timetable.

Add back some off-peak Melksham line trains between Swindon and Westbury removed in the Straw Man.

All of the above were left out of the specification by the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about).

However, the following should be noted (link below) :
http://indefenceoffirstgreatwestern.blogspot.com/2007/11/answering-some-questions.html

My comment :

I do , however , think that FGW's decision to ask for a change to the Westbury - Swindon section of the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) (granted by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) , 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.

Insider's comment :

We also made some bad decisions, such as the one you mention involving the Stroud Valley. Hopefully, we can put some of them right.

[grahame]

It's interesting to note that in the 4 years of Wessex Trains, passengers on the Wessex services increased by 50%, well above national trends.

Yes - and those are figures that don't surprise me; they're actually slightly below the figures I have for the "TransWilts", but then they're going to be averaged out by other lines growing very slightly less fast.

A growth rate of around 0.8% per annum (equating to 3.24% over 4 years) was used in the various studies that were done by Jacobs / SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) in preparation for the new timetable introduced in December 2006, and the input figures were based on figures for passenger number that went back at least as far as 2002 (and perhaps 2001) - after all, it does take a long time to prefer a specification that's as complex as the Great Western one.

There were three bidders for the Greater Western Franchise, and I think it's fair to say that First had excellent knowledge of the express services history in the area, and National Express had excellenk knowledge of the "Wessex" operation.  As they were competing with each other in the bid, I suspect they didn't have access to each other's full and up to date internal information and so each relied on the specifications and reports I have just mentioned as being correct ... and got  a few surprises when it was too late to specify a service to suit the needs of the blossoming traffic.

[grahame]

Just in case anyone thinks that I am being one-sided against FGW^▸ (First Great Western), I would also point out that Jacobs did some further optioneering and came up with some extra recommendations :

Linking together of the Bristol ^ Oxford services proposed in the Straw Man with Weston ^ Bristol services, enabling an additional return trip to Oxford in marginal time.

Add back Severn Beach extensions truncated in the Straw Man timetable.

Add back some off-peak Melksham line trains between Swindon and Westbury removed in the Straw Man.

All of the above were left out of the specification by the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about).

However, the following should be noted (link below) :
http://indefenceoffirstgreatwestern.blogspot.com/2007/11/answering-some-questions.html

My comment :

I do , however , think that FGW's decision to ask for a change to the Westbury - Swindon section of the SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) (granted by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) , 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.

Insider's comment :

We also made some bad decisions, such as the one you mention involving the Stroud Valley. Hopefully, we can put some of them right.

Indeed, Lee.  Having seen a recommendation in Jacobs (which was pretty drastic in some of the slashing it proposed elsewhere) come out IN FAVOUR of a daytime TransWilts service ... and IN FAVOUR of a peak hour commuter train to and from Swindon, it did feel very much like a kick in the teeth to find that the powers that be had come up with a specification that "outslashed" the slashing that Jacobs had proposed. And it felt like having salt rubbed in the wound to have the specification changed yet again and in a negative direction, this AFTER First had done their consultation for December 2006.

I think we should really work as hard as we can with First for the mutul benefit of all concerned, but this history does make it very hard to do so with a feeling that they are being genuine, and that there won't be some other hurdle this year.  Oh yes - I didn't even mention the fizzled promises of last year, did I?

[Lee]

A growth rate of around 0.8% per annum (equating to 3.24% over 4 years) was used in the various studies that were done by Jacobs / SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) in preparation for the new timetable introduced in December 2006, and the input figures were based on figures for passenger number that went back at least as far as 2002 (and perhaps 2001) - after all, it does take a long time to prefer a specification that's as complex as the Great Western one.

It should also be noted that the Jacobs reports were written in 2004.

I recall an interesting quote from a 2002 David Redgewell Parliamentary submission on behalf of Transport 2000 (now Campaign For Better Transport, link below) :
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtran/125/125ap06.htm

THE FUTURE OF PASSENGER FRANCHISES


^  Greater Western Franchise welcomed and wish the merger to be implemented in 2004, in order that the region may secure benefits in capacity and frequency of services.

^  All rolling stock to include with name of TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) the words "operating services on behalf of the SRA".

^  Clear guidance on ultimate responsibility needed for light rail schemes where these share heavy rail infrastructure.

^  Need for PTE^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) type structures to hold budgets and manage integration of bus and rail networks.

We warmly welcome the recent decision of the SRA to create a Greater Western Franchise which will simplify the previous situation whereby the South West was served by five separate Train Operating Companies If passengers in the West are to feel the benefits of this decision, then the mergers of both the Wessex and Thames Franchises need to proceed in 2004, and not be delayed a further two years until 2006. The daily frustrations for commuters wishing to access Bath and Bristol by road are legion and we need to see delivery of improvements in both frequency and capacity of rail services^yesterday. As the Chairman of the Western RPC stated in his Report 2001-02, we are the Cinderella region so far as rail improvements are concerned. This merger will free up a great deal of capacity, and this is needed most urgently.

To contribute to the public's understanding of the structure of the rail industry, we would welcome the inclusion of the words on all rolling stock:

"Name of TOC"^"operating services on behalf of the SRA"

In order to make clear that these are subsidised services supported by the taxpayer and not run at commercial risk by the TOC, ie more nearly portray the TOC's true balance between contractor and entrepreneur. We also believe in branding, similar to that which occurs in a PTE area, for all trams, buses and trains as a contributory factor to integration of services. So far as the South West is concerned, we would hope that it will be possible to rebrand into a cohesive network^perhaps "West Country Regional Service" and "Thames & Kennet Regional Service".

A degree of regulation should also be specified, for instance, that the train arriving in Chippenham from Bristol shall be met in the forecourt by a linked Rail bus^true bus/rail integration.