FGW named Rail Business of the Year in 2015 and subsequent ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

In which case, neither should they have to take the flack at all for NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s infrastructure failures or DfTs^» (Department for Transport - about) incompetence....but they do. So I'm adding my name to others giving them so leeway in taking this credit....

[TaplowGreen]

In which case, neither should they have to take the flack at all for NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s infrastructure failures or DfTs^» (Department for Transport - about) incompetence....but they do. So I'm adding my name to others giving them so leeway in taking this credit....

I look at it this way.............NR are responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, when it goes wrong, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have to manage the fallout and the effect on its customers, similarly, there appears to have been a complete (but predicatable) ballsup over the electrification project, to the tune of ^1billion+ and a 12 month delay.

FGW, on the back of all the promises of investment, have been reassuring customers who cope with cattle truck conditions and chronic delays that new trains/infrastructure will provide more capacity and greater reliability, this is the message trundled out via various media strands, so now that it's costing a great deal more and taking a great deal longer it will be up to FGW to go back to its customers and say ".....sorry folks, we got it wrong" and manage the fallout/dissatisfaction.........I guess that's the "railway family" working in partnership?

I just wish they'd learn that its always best to under promise and overdeliver rather than the other way around!!!

[grahame]

... its always best to under promise and overdeliver rather than the other way around!!!

I think you have given me a soundbite I can use in explaining something about the TransWilts 

[a-driver]

In which case, neither should they have to take the flack at all for NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s infrastructure failures or DfTs^» (Department for Transport - about) incompetence....but they do. So I'm adding my name to others giving them so leeway in taking this credit....

I look at it this way.............NR are responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, when it goes wrong, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have to manage the fallout and the effect on its customers, similarly, there appears to have been a complete (but predicatable) ballsup over the electrification project, to the tune of ^1billion+ and a 12 month delay.

FGW, on the back of all the promises of investment, have been reassuring customers who cope with cattle truck conditions and chronic delays that new trains/infrastructure will provide more capacity and greater reliability, this is the message trundled out via various media strands, so now that it's costing a great deal more and taking a great deal longer it will be up to FGW to go back to its customers and say ".....sorry folks, we got it wrong" and manage the fallout/dissatisfaction.........I guess that's the "railway family" working in partnership?

I just wish they'd learn that its always best to under promise and overdeliver rather than the other way around!!!

It will be interesting to see what happens regards them being overbudget.  The upgrade of the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) went seriously overbudget and as a result part of the project that would have lead to 140mph running was cut to save costs.  I just wonder if something similar will happen on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).

If you wanted to be really cynical, you could look the franchising situation and ask, would the DfT really want to negotiate a new franchise, promising a new operator X, Y and Z when it can not currently guarantee the project being completed in full 

[TaplowGreen]

In which case, neither should they have to take the flack at all for NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s infrastructure failures or DfTs^» (Department for Transport - about) incompetence....but they do. So I'm adding my name to others giving them so leeway in taking this credit....

I look at it this way.............NR are responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, when it goes wrong, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have to manage the fallout and the effect on its customers, similarly, there appears to have been a complete (but predicatable) ballsup over the electrification project, to the tune of ^1billion+ and a 12 month delay.



FGW, on the back of all the promises of investment, have been reassuring customers who cope with cattle truck conditions and chronic delays that new trains/infrastructure will provide more capacity and greater reliability, this is the message trundled out via various media strands, so now that it's costing a great deal more and taking a great deal longer it will be up to FGW to go back to its customers and say ".....sorry folks, we got it wrong" and manage the fallout/dissatisfaction.........I guess that's the "railway family" working in partnership?

I just wish they'd learn that its always best to under promise and overdeliver rather than the other way around!!!

It will be interesting to see what happens regards them being overbudget.  The upgrade of the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) went seriously overbudget and as a result part of the project that would have lead to 140mph running was cut to save costs.  I just wonder if something similar will happen on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).

If you wanted to be really cynical, you could look the franchising situation and ask, would the DfT really want to negotiate a new franchise, promising a new operator X, Y and Z when it can not currently guarantee the project being completed in full 

Good point - suspect it will wait until after the election, but coming up with an extra billion (at least) in the context of other demands on the public purse is unlikely to prove popular......I'd love to know who came up with the original costing!

[ChrisB]

It'll just be added to the deficit....

[stuving]

Good point - suspect it will wait until after the election, but coming up with an extra billion (at least) in the context of other demands on the public purse is unlikely to prove popular......I'd love to know who came up with the original costing!

More importantly, I'd like to know what kind of costing either figure is (as well as basic stuff like whether they are genuine at all).

Unless both have the same status, comparing them is misleading. For example, if the initial costing is nett - "known costs only" with no contingency - it's only ever going to go up, and everyone involved knows it. For example, there might be a contingency for all the electrification schemes, to be allocated after enough work has been done to firm up the figures.

Given how much mischief can be made with such figures, I'm surprised not to see more effort put into making the figures, with attached status, public and easy to find.

[TaplowGreen]

Interesting view from some of the comrades;

http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new/news/index.cfm/first-great-western-misleads-passengers-over-who-is-paying-for-investment

[Richard Fairhurst]

Incorrect, the bulk of the investment is coming from the public purse and is being spent on a publicly owned asset

Sorry, could you tell me what was actually "incorrect" about my posting?

[chrisr_75]

Incorrect, the bulk of the investment is coming from the public purse and is being spent on a publicly owned asset

Sorry, could you tell me what was actually "incorrect" about my posting?

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is the company accountable to the public for Building A Greater West, whether for credit or blame.

This ^^

Apologies, perhaps 'I disagree' would've been a better phrase to use as you were expressing a perfectly valid opinion!

I don't think FGW are or can be accountable for Network Rail's spending plans as they are two separate entities. The bulk of the investment, certainly in infrastructure, is coming from NR^» (Network Rail - home page)/public purse, so I cannot see how FGW can imply that they are in some way linked to that other than by the fact they hold a franchise to run trains.

I see no reason why the advertisements shouldn't be reversed to be Network Rail branded, by all means including FGW & First Group logos on there as current franchise holder, but they shouldn't be the dominant branding on the marketing material as that implies the money is coming from them.

In this (very very rare!!) instance, I'm in full agreement with TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about) that the adverts seen around London are misleading.

[IndustryInsider]

I see no reason why the advertisements shouldn't be reversed to be Network Rail branded, by all means including FGW^▸ (First Great Western) & First Group logos on there as current franchise holder, but they shouldn't be the dominant branding on the marketing material as that implies the money is coming from them.

In this (very very rare!!) instance, I'm in full agreement with TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about) that the adverts seen around London are misleading.

Yes I quite agree if the dominant branding is FGW and First Group's, without mention of who is spending the money.  I haven't seen the adverts around London, just those like the Brunel one on the following link which make it perfectly clear who is doing the investing from the start (and even on that one I feel that the Network Rail logo should appear at some point):

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/03/26/first-great-western-shows-faces-behind-its-rejuvenation-building-greater-west

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ah, I think we're quibbling over the word "accountable". I wouldn't for a moment suggest that they were accountable financially to Government. But they're accountable to the public for the failings of the infrastructure. When @angrycommuter complains to @FGW^▸ (First Great Western) of a Monday morning about "All trains delayed, I pay ^5,000 for this s--t, sort it out", he/she isn't interested that it was actually Network Rail's fault for messing up the signalling. FGW is the customer interface, and has to take it on the chin. Like ChrisB says, "they shouldn't have to take the flack at all for NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s infrastructure failures or DfTs^» (Department for Transport - about) incompetence....but they do".

If that makes sense.

[gpn01]

Incorrect, the bulk of the investment is coming from the public purse and is being spent on a publicly owned asset

Sorry, could you tell me what was actually "incorrect" about my posting?

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is the company accountable to the public for Building A Greater West, whether for credit or blame.

This ^^

Apologies, perhaps 'I disagree' would've been a better phrase to use as you were expressing a perfectly valid opinion!

I don't think FGW are or can be accountable for Network Rail's spending plans as they are two separate entities. The bulk of the investment, certainly in infrastructure, is coming from NR^» (Network Rail - home page)/public purse, so I cannot see how FGW can imply that they are in some way linked to that other than by the fact they hold a franchise to run trains.

I see no reason why the advertisements shouldn't be reversed to be Network Rail branded, by all means including FGW & First Group logos on there as current franchise holder, but they shouldn't be the dominant branding on the marketing material as that implies the money is coming from them.

In this (very very rare!!) instance, I'm in full agreement with TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about) that the adverts seen around London are misleading.

As a commuter, and tax payer, I believe that the adverts were completely misleading. It riled me so much as I know, unlike most people who see the adverts, that it's not FGW making a multi-billion investment.I complained to the ASA and would encourage others to do so too.

[ChrisB]

There's no additional gain to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) from the way the ads are misleading, so the ASA can't do much

[TeaStew]

There's no additional gain to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) from the way the ads are misleading, so the ASA can't do much

No gain!? Now I know FGW are so keen to improve the rail infrastructure I will definitely make sure I use their trains instead of... oh. Oh well, hopefully they don't get added to an ISIS list of targets for their work improving "the West".

Apologies for this post, one of those mornings at work, I will see myself out...