First Great Western - industrial action in 2015 - merged topic

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

[there is indesputable evidence that underfloor engines were not wanted on such a long journey, yet underfloor engines is exactly what they're getting.

So where is this "indisputable" evidence?

A comment made by the managing director of First Great Western and printed in a respected railway magazine. He refered to stakeholders considering class 222 units to be not acceptable due to underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors. Maybe 'evidence' was too strong a word, but I don't think the source can be disputed.

[ChrisB]

So where is this "indisputable" evidence? I've only seen some comments on here, and in the press. Certainly no survey of at least 1,000 pax that use the service - usually the minimum for an acceptable statistical survey

I would suspect most of the travelling public couldn't care less where the engine is. All they are interested in is getting to where they want to go.

I would agree with that sentiment. Do you see more pax using the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) between Exeter & Plymouth say, or do pax just travel at the time they want to, regardless of stock. The latter is my opinion

[grahame]

He refered to stakeholders considering class 222 units to be not acceptable due to underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors.

Sounds like a specific comment on Meridians and the root causes of them not being acceptable.   Class 150 really isn't good for long distance journeys, partly due to underfloor diesel noise.  Class 158 much better, even though the engines are still underfloor.  Nothing to prevent similar improvement from 222 to AT300.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

4064ReadingAbbey posted (quote refusing to work)

This leaves the big open question as to how the difference between the monthly payments due for the Agility Trains^ vehicles and the Eversholt vehicles will be covered.

At least partially through savings in staff/depots for maintenance....be interested to know what % that might be....

An interesting question! A back-of-the-envelope calculation would suggest^not very much!

The ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) spreadsheet I quoted above gives the total staff costs for fGW as ^260 million for 2013-14. The fGW web site claims that it employs some 5,000 people. This means that, on average, each staff member costs ^52,000 per year. If we assume that the introduction of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) reduces fGW staff count by 100 at each of the three main depots (London, Plymouth and Swansea) this would reduce the staff costs by ^15.6 million per year.

(It is clear that some residual work will continue to take place at two of the depots at least because of the presence of rolling stock based there used for the more local services, so I assume that not all the staff will be displaced and the buildings will continue to be operational.)

Based on the NAO^s figures the Train Service Provision payment to Agility Trains will be some ^300 million per annum.

So requiring Agility Trains to maintain the IEPs will potentially reduce fGW^s maintenance staff costs by a sum amounting to some 5% of the TSP^▸ (Train Service Provider) payments. If I have underestimated the number of maintenance staff displaced by the IEP by a factor of 2, the staff cost reduction still only covers 10% of the TSP payments.

There remains a huge gulf!

(What I hope is that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has now seen the error of its ways. It is significant that fGW has ordered the AT300s from a ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about), which is financing the deal and which in turn will buy the trains from Hitachi, rather than the DfT insisting that the extra trains are an ^add-on^ or taken from an option in the IEP contract with Agility Trains).

[ChrisB]

So requiring Agility Trains to maintain the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)

I thought the maintenance contract was direct with Hitachi? They will be paid for each train required by FGW^▸ (First Great Western)

(What I hope is that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has now seen the error of its ways. It is significant that fGW has ordered the AT300s from a ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about), which is financing the deal and which in turn will buy the trains from Hitachi, rather than the DfT insisting that the extra trains are an ‘add-on’ or taken from an option in the IEP contract with Agility Trains).

What I haven't yet seen is anything confirming who is to maintain the AT300s on order? Hitachi, the ROSCO that is financing them or FGW (I assume not the latter, otherwise the union wouldn't be up in arms about a Hitachi move, but don't know for sure)

[ellendune]

Agility trains seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi that will own the trains.  It is not clear to me from their website whether they or Hitachi Europe actually carry out the maintenance. 

[ChrisB]

A briefing in the early days at Swindon Steam with Hitachi Europe head honcho gave me the distinct impression that Hitachi Europe were contracted to maintain. that, I think, was with the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train)

[JayMac]

Agility trains seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi that will own the trains.  It is not clear to me from their website whether they or Hitachi Europe actually carry out the maintenance. 

Agility Trains is 70% Hitachi Rail Europe, and;

For the Inter City East Coast IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) fleet, 30% John Laing Investments.

For the Greater Western IEP fleet, 24% John Laing Investments, 6% MetLife Private Capital Investors.

http://www.agilitytrains.com/about-us

[4064ReadingAbbey]

So requiring Agility Trains to maintain the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)

I thought the maintenance contract was direct with Hitachi? They will be paid for each train required by FGW^▸ (First Great Western)

The sentence was intended to be read as "So (it was known by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) that by) requiring Agility Trains to maintain the IEPs.." the number of fGW maintenance staff would be reduced.

The DfT deal for the supply of sufficient trains to meet the timetable requirements has been made with Agility Trains West - not with Hitachi directly. As bnm clarifies Agility Trains West is a joint venture with Hitachi and two other partners. Agility Trains is very much a vehicle for raising the financing needed to cover the design, testing, manufacturing of the trains and the building of the maintenance depots. It will only start to receive income when the first train enters service - the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will pay the rent to Agility Trains, not to Hitachi.

Whether Agility Trains directly employs the staff for the maintenance and cleaning of the trains or whether some or all of these activities will be sub-contracted to Hitachi is not, as far as I known, in the public domain.

(What I hope is that the DfT has now seen the error of its ways. It is significant that fGW has ordered the AT300s from a ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about), which is financing the deal and which in turn will buy the trains from Hitachi, rather than the DfT insisting that the extra trains are an ‘add-on’ or taken from an option in the IEP contract with Agility Trains).

What I haven't yet seen is anything confirming who is to maintain the AT300s on order? Hitachi, the ROSCO that is financing them or FGW (I assume not the latter, otherwise the union wouldn't be up in arms about a Hitachi move, but don't know for sure)

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) is dispute about the IEP trains not, as far as I am aware, about the AT300s.

As Eversholt will own the AT300s, it is up to Eversholt to decided who will maintain the trains. Eversholt itself, in common with the other ROSCOs, does not do any maintenance work itself - it is always contracted to third parties in many cases the operating TOC, sometimes the manufacturer and sometimes organisations such as Wabtec or Brush for heavier rebuilds. In any event any decision is likely to be made in conjunction with the operating TOC. As I understand it, the three sites currently being developed for the IEP are sized for, and sited to serve, the fleet being built and the routes on which they will be used - London to Bristol and Weston-super-Mare and London to South Wales and to the Cotswolds. They may have some excess capacity but, I would suggest, with the exception of the Old Oak Common depot they are not ideally sited for services to the West Country ^ ensuring train sets get to the right place for maintenance would seem to add an extra degree of complication to rolling stock planning.

So I would not be surprised to find these trains having their running maintenance done at somewhere like Laira or Long Rock - but whether the plant will then be under the TOC's direct control or that of Hitachi in one form or another, I have no idea.

[Rhydgaled]

The ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) spreadsheet I quoted above gives the total staff costs for fGW as ^260 million for 2013-14. The fGW web site claims that it employs some 5,000 people. This means that, on average, each staff member costs ^52,000 per year. If we assume that the introduction of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) reduces fGW staff count by 100 at each of the three main depots (London, Plymouth and Swansea) this would reduce the staff costs by ^15.6 million per year.

(It is clear that some residual work will continue to take place at two of the depots at least because of the presence of rolling stock based there used for the more local services, so I assume that not all the staff will be displaced and the buildings will continue to be operational.)

Of those three depots (Old Oak Common (London), Plymouth and Swansea) surely only one (Plymouth) will continue to be a First GW^▸ (Great Western) depot? I thought Old Oak Common is to be demolished to make way for HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) and Landore (Swansea) currently only houses IC125s (in future Landore will probably transfer to the Wales & Borders franchise).

[ellendune]

I thought there was to be a new Depot for IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) in Swansea at Maliphant

[4064ReadingAbbey]

The ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) spreadsheet I quoted above gives the total staff costs for fGW as ^260 million for 2013-14. The fGW web site claims that it employs some 5,000 people. This means that, on average, each staff member costs ^52,000 per year. If we assume that the introduction of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) reduces fGW staff count by 100 at each of the three main depots (London, Plymouth and Swansea) this would reduce the staff costs by ^15.6 million per year.

(It is clear that some residual work will continue to take place at two of the depots at least because of the presence of rolling stock based there used for the more local services, so I assume that not all the staff will be displaced and the buildings will continue to be operational.)

Of those three depots (Old Oak Common (London), Plymouth and Swansea) surely only one (Plymouth) will continue to be a First GW^▸ (Great Western) depot? I thought Old Oak Common is to be demolished to make way for HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) and Landore (Swansea) currently only houses IC125s (in future Landore will probably transfer to the Wales & Borders franchise).

My post was not trying to predict what would happen to each of the depots - it was written as an answer to the question posed by ChrisB. As such it is simply intended as a ranging shot to determine what percentage of the Train Service Provision payments to Agility Trains for the IEP could be covered by possible fGW staff reductions ^ I thought this was clear.

In this case the three depots affected are Old Oak Common, St. Philip's Marsh and Landore. The IEPs will have little or no effect on Laira as it is not intended that they will work west of Exeter/Torbay so I left it out of the estimate.

I am aware that the existing fGW Old Oak Common depot is likely to be demolished as it lies in the path of HS2. I suspect that many if not most of the staff will come off fGW's books; some may transfer to other work within the organisation.

St. Philip's Marsh will lose the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) work, but will be retained to maintain the local diesel fleet. Landore will lose its HST work, but with luck the staff will transfer to the Welsh TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company), but they will come off fGW's books.

So I assumed that fGW's staff numbers would reduce by some 300, 100 at each of the 3 depots. These 300 make up 5% (approx) of the TSP^▸ (Train Service Provider) payments. I also said that if I guessed wrongly and double that number leave fGW's books the cost reductions still only amount to about 10% of the TSP payments.

As I said, these are back-of-the-envelope calculations. They are almost certainly not accurate - but they give an order of magnitude estimation of the sums of money involved. And it seems that the IEP caper is a very expensive way to buy seat-miles.

[ellendune]

Of course although this would reduce FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s direct staff costs, it is not necessarily a reduction in overall staff costs by that amount as Hitachi or whoever is maintaining the new units will need to employ staff to do the maintenance. It is important to look at costs in the round. 

Too many organisations have outsourced work to make their headcount look good for the city only to find that that the outsourcing is costing them more than it did in house or they find that the outsourcing organisation does not do the work well enough or very commonly both. Why the city is so obsessed with headcount rather than cost I do not understand. 

[Adelante_CCT]

Well it appears all the planned HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are running so far today and on top of that an additional PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to RDG^‡(resolve) HST shuttle for the festival is also operating.

[JayMac]

Seems the weather gods are on the side of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) rather than the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers). With it being rather inclement FGW aren't having to deal with hoards of day trippers to coastal areas.