|
ChrisB
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2015, 10:23:16 » |
|
166204 in the new GWR▸ Green livery passing Kings Langley 1928 22/07/2015 from Wolverton Sidings to Reading Traincare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sM7v0ti8D4Still to be fitted with GWR branding though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TaplowGreen
|
|
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2015, 10:50:07 » |
|
Other than a coat of paint and calling itself GWR▸ , how exactly is FGW▸ working to improve its brand?
To be fair, public perception of the brand and its performance couldn't be much worse, but it would be interesting to know.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2015, 10:54:41 » |
|
it isn't - it's DfT» led.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2015, 10:58:33 » |
|
I've already edged toward concluding that it's a DfT» request to have neutral branding - i.e. nothing corporate.
But why just the Greater Western franchise? Other recent franchise awards have had no such condition imposed. Virgin have started emblazoning their logo all over the East Coast rolling stock. Govia Thameslink Railway have multiple brands across their network. What has been required in the Greater Western franchise is that any brands applied be transferable to future operators if that future operator wants them. Company names can still be used if the operator so wishes. From the Greater Western Franchise Agreement: Branding
Subject to any applicable obligations or restrictions on the Franchisee (including the terms of the Rolling Stock Leases), the Franchisee may apply registered or unregistered trademarks (including company names, livery and other distinctive get-up) to any assets owned or used by it in the operation and provision of the Franchise Services.
Follow the link for further reading in the Franchise Agreement about branding and successor operators. It is clear therefore that First Group have chosen not to have any corporate identity with G WR. It hasn't been imposed on them by the DfT. The Franchise Agreement says they can have company names if they so wish. Those companies would be either First Group PLC, or subsidiary First Greater Western Ltd. it isn't - it's DfT led.
It isn't. It's a First Group decision. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 23, 2015, 11:14:20 by bignosemac »
|
Logged
|
"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation."
"Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot."
"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
|
|
|
|
BerkshireBugsy
|
|
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2015, 11:08:48 » |
|
Other than a coat of paint and calling itself GWR▸ , how exactly is FGW▸ working to improve its brand?
To be fair, public perception of the brand and its performance couldn't be much worse, but it would be interesting to know.
My own personal perception is it's not that bad ...but I accept that.. 1) I don't currently have to use FGW services on a daily basis 2) I accept there are issues on the infrastructure which aren't down to the TOC▸ 's but may affect the travelling public 3) I believe a survey was done not so long ago which rated customer satisfaction across TOCs but don't recall how we fared. 4) I am able to adjust the journeys I take so that I reduce the impact of overcrowding on me but this normally does mean getting up very early! I may get flamed for this but given the constraints under which FGW currently operate are they really that bad? NOTE: Having just re-read my post it may not be deemed relevant to this thread but I was replying in context of an earlier post. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2015, 11:14:02 » |
|
Agreed - with the removal of the Network Rail (mostly signalling) issues, FGW▸ would be as reasonable as any other TOC▸ .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2015, 11:40:12 » |
|
I would agree that given the constraints under which they work, that FGW▸ are not that bad.
My concerns are however with the future, I fear that from the passengers point of view that things are getting worse and not better.
Whatever the theoretical advantages that may be claimed, I am not convinced that 5 car DMUs▸ are an improvement on HSTs▸ . Whilst they may run in multiple to give a full length train, the use of short multiple units without gangways means by sods law that the trolley will be in the other unit, as will be the first class host.
Despite claims that a survey shows a preference for a trolley over a buffet, I am not convinced that removing buffets is the great step forward that is claimed. Note that the survey was conducted AFTER the decision had been made to remove buffets, this suggests that the survey was done to justify the decision already taken.
IIRC▸ , Mark Hopwood has previously stated that DMUs with under floor engines were not suited to inter city routes, so what are we getting ? DMUS with under floor engines !
Despite an attractive looking refurbishment, first class provision has been drastically reduced on the existing fleet, from two and a half vehicles to one and a half.
The new trains have even worse first class provision with only 36 first class seats on the half length units. If two units are run in multiple, presumably first class will be in random locations as on a suburban train.
And as for electrification, I have mixed feelings. I should be in favour of electric traction, apart from other factors oil is going to get more costly as supplies deplete.
Unfortunately the work is hugely over budget and behind in time, where is this money to come from ? After suffering from the failed East coast electrification I fear a repeat, especially when considering the exposed nature of parts of the route.
No amount of re branding can make up for trains that are too short and unsuited to inter city routes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2015, 11:48:20 » |
|
Blimey, the record's stuck again :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anthony215
|
|
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2015, 16:34:05 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2015, 16:44:07 » |
|
166204?....yep, there's a thread somewhere that's mentioned this already
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LiskeardRich
|
|
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2015, 17:21:22 » |
|
I've already edged toward concluding that it's a DfT» request to have neutral branding - i.e. nothing corporate.
But why just the Greater Western franchise? Other recent franchise awards have had no such condition imposed. Virgin have started emblazoning their logo all over the East Coast rolling stock. Govia Thameslink Railway have multiple brands across their network. What has been required in the Greater Western franchise is that any brands applied be transferable to future operators if that future operator wants them. Company names can still be used if the operator so wishes. From the Greater Western Franchise Agreement: Branding
Subject to any applicable obligations or restrictions on the Franchisee (including the terms of the Rolling Stock Leases), the Franchisee may apply registered or unregistered trademarks (including company names, livery and other distinctive get-up) to any assets owned or used by it in the operation and provision of the Franchise Services.
Follow the link for further reading in the Franchise Agreement about branding and successor operators. It is clear therefore that First Group have chosen not to have any corporate identity with G WR. It hasn't been imposed on them by the DfT. The Franchise Agreement says they can have company names if they so wish. Those companies would be either First Group PLC, or subsidiary First Greater Western Ltd. it isn't - it's DfT led.
It isn't. It's a First Group decision. As a Taunton man, spot the similarities with Buses of Somerset, repainted and rebranded and lost the First corporate name from the brand. Whilst the repaint looks good, general customers will be thinking of it being a new company with shiny new trains. Thus losing the negative reputation of "First" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All posts are my own personal believes, opinions and understandings!
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2015, 19:32:44 » |
|
More re-skinning, its all done with vinyl wrap nowadays with a little paint Also got a good look yesterday morning of the work at Hitachi's IEP▸ depot near Bristol Parkway.
The class 800 should start to appear at North Pole soon, the final route gauge checks from North Pole to the ECML▸ is being done, last area is the North London Incline into Copenhagen Tunnel which is a tad tight on paper apparently; this so the trains can get their pre service mileage to failure runs in. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2015, 20:17:35 » |
|
Yes, it's the whole First Group that has a bad rep, not just FGW▸ . Whether deserved or not, they do seem to be poorly perceived.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2015, 21:06:13 » |
|
ASUI the Green stock will have a vynal sticker with Operated by First Group or words to that effect. Which can be removed if First lose the franchise.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2015, 21:14:24 » |
|
Yes, it's the whole First Group that has a bad rep, not just FGW▸ . Whether deserved or not, they do seem to be poorly perceived.
Some was deserved IMO▸ with regard to First Capital Connect, otherwise known as Thameslink. This is not a First group franchise anymore. At the time it was in my opinion by far the worst of any TOC▸ that I used regularly. Delays of hours with thousands trapped below ground in darkness and sweltering heat seemed to be accepted as "just one of those things" I suspect that the performance of that TOC did substantial harm to the reputation of First Group as a whole. When it was announced that First group had won the West Coast franchise, this was greeted with disgust by many, especially by those who had experienced Thameslink. Some people no doubt expected that trains to Scotland would as a result be formed of 4 car class 319s ! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
