PM Enters Future Of FGW Franchise Debate

[whole diary]

[grahame]

I think we each take a look at our our journeys and our own areas when we form our own opinions as to how well, or otherwise, things have gone.  And so, based on my own view ...

If you start off with a "score" of 100 when First took over, then you may have seen it rise to 105 or 110 in the first hundred days. We saw station signs proudly transformed, we quickly saw new uniforms worn by the staff, and we read a letter at the end of that 100 days telling us of the other improvements.  But alas we were driving towards a cliff edge - we knew it, and some of us alerted First to the fact that service changes they wer going to make in December would move their score down from the excellent at the time, though the good and mediocre levels to "fail".  And - goodness - how they fell!

I hesistate to score at the moment. 20 out of 100?    60% of services cut.  Timing of remaining ones crass. Weekend runs hardly ever even run. Weekday cancellations often over 10%. Buy on the weekday cheapest fare to London up from 38 pounds to 115 pounds.

Indeed - the new broom should be given time.  But the history isn't kind to new brooms on our line. They come in, they listen, they sympathise, and they do nothing or they run a consultation to find what you feel you need /should have, then do the opposite.

As far as I'm concerned, they're still doing pretty badly.  They get goodwill, in increasingly diminishing amounts after each letdown, for listening and talking.  But there's a prize there to be had now.   A confirmation of a fix for the issues that have pulled them down to 20/100 - and that fix has been discussed.  Let's get it back close to the 100.  A sensible commuter train. A sensible other service. And that means a service on which sensible fares are charged.

If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) make those changes under Mr Haines then - yes - they will be able to take the franchise forward and make positive developenments at last even from where we were - with a rapidly growing passenger count on the TransWilts - when they took over exactly 2 years ago today

[vacman]

Fair comment graham, and Melksham may well be suffering, but by the end of next year most other routes on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will be seeing some major improvements and more trains than they've seen in over 50 years, one of them is Gunnislake and another I can't disclose yet as it's still in the finalising stage but it's a line that has had a sub standard service since before Melksham was even reopened.
As for Melksham I haven't heard anything from the "powers that be" for a while, but like I said, watch this space. Oh, and these improved services are not being funded by any third parties!

[willc]

As for senior managers going to other positions within First Group - not necessarily. The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) could kindly 'request' (or more, force unofficially) a TUPE^▸ (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.) transfer to a new franchise.

Andrew Haines is also First Group's rail division managing director, so he'd be off straight away, and how could you dump First, then keep on its senior FGW^▸ (First Great Western) managers, if they're doing so badly?

Likewise, Network Rail should be punished for the poor state of the rail infrastructure in the West.

Where do you think all the money that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) was fined (^14m I think) by the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) for its recent foul-ups has gone? Back into the rail industry? No - to the Treasury.

So all that 'punishing' NR and FGW would do is take out even more money that could otherwise be spent on putting things right. Or do you really think another period of upheaval, uncertainty and recrimination is going to help get the rail network in the Thames Valley and West of England back in shape?

The service cuts were at the behest of the DfT and Haines arrived before any Government ministers got on their high horses about FGW - probably because they didn't pay the situation any attention until they twigged it could be bad news for Labour politically, with a number of key marginal seats in the FGW area - even if the rail franchise system was invented by the lot in blue rosettes, just in case anyone's forgotten.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I^ll post this from me personally, not as a moderator: I don^t work for FGW^▸ (First Great Western), I^m just a commuter / passenger / customer:

I think the article itself puts this into its proper perspective: ^Mr Brown, gearing up for a series of tough local elections across Wales and England on May 1 ^  will say whatever is convenient, and if that includes bashing one particular TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company), that^s just what he^ll do.  In the spirit of ^spin^ - don^t let the facts get in the way of a good headline.

I don^t know when Gordon ^m on the side of the passenger^ Brown last actually travelled by FGW, but I use them just about every weekday, and some weekends as well.  I have found their service much better over the past couple of months: fair enough, the December 2007 timetable was a bit of a disaster in its introduction (that^s why I joined this forum, after all!) and FGW have acknowledged there were problems - but their service has been getting steadily better since January.  It^s therefore rather mean to criticise them now by saying ^they^ve got to start improving or else^: they are already much improved!

Andrew Haines has set up a good team ^ people with a proven ability to turn things around.  I think they should be allowed to get on with the job they^ve started - don^t give them a hard time now, when they are actually starting to make a difference!

I also think there should be some scrutiny of the role played in this by Network Rail and the Department for Transport: it^s not really fair to pick on just one of the three protagonists in this.  Or is it perhaps not so politically convenient for a politician to be seen to be criticising the other two organisations involved ^ ?

[Lee]

Personally, I think we are in danger of ignoring the role of the now-defunct organisation who devised the Greater Western Franchise in the first place :

Under the Strategic Rail Authority, the following occured :

- The Rail Passenger Partnership scheme (which, among many other worthy causes, would have provided the funding to reopen Corsham station) was scrapped to save money.

- An aggressive policy of favouring fast services over stopping/rural services was persued. This was embodied in the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about)'s Wider Case for Rail strategy, which admitted what government advisers had privately been saying for some time: 'Rail is best when it provides fast, long distance passenger services ... commuter services on busy corridors ... services to major airports [and] rail freight services for regular high volume flows.'

- Etruria station was closed, and other stations in that area had their train service completely withdrawn.

- A policy of employing consultants (at huge expense) to carry out even the most minor of tasks was implemented.

- The Oxford-Bristol service was withdrawn, which prompted the SRA view that Corsham station could not be reopened because there was no longer a service that could call there.

- The ludicrously flawed Great Western Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy was released. This has since been virtually disowned by Network Rail, who will be releasing their own version in the next couple of years.

- The Greater Western Franchise was devised on the basis of flawed figures provided by consultants who were allowed to propose closure options as part of their brief.

They did strip Connex "please can we have an extra ^200m in subsidy to continue not providing a train service" South Eastern of their franchise though, and there were a few other positive things left as a legacy, some of which are mentioned in the link below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/releases/sra/2004/2004a/143millionwestcountryrailinv1190

The bad far outweighed the good though.

Some might argue that former SRA chairman Richard Bowker and National Express are victims of DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) policy. Indeed, Bowker put forward a similar argument in the article link below, where he also pledged "a swift turnaround as the route relaunches as National Express East Coast" :
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/12/east_coast_rail_service_vows_r.html#more

Richard Bowker, who oversaw the franchise system earlier in the decade as the former head of the now defunct Strategic Rail Authority, said the government should extend contracts beyond their current length of around 10 years. "The train operators should be allowed more freedom to innovate and invest. They have won their spurs."

The franchise system has been criticised by industry executives for being too prescriptive, particularly in setting timetables and allocating train carriages, while demanding steep payments that require annual above-inflation fare rises.

"For reasons of getting a grip, it has become a little bit too prescribed," Bowker said. "The pendulum needs to swing back more.

"It requires the industry to get together and agree a way forward. It probably requires the Department for Transport to be a little less concerned about service planning within franchises and allow train operators and Network Rail to do that little bit more."

A bit different from what he said in the 2002 Strategic Rail Authority announcement of intention to create a new Greater Western rail franchise by no later than 2006 (link below) :
http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/releases/sra/20022/2004b/sraannouncesnewfranchisefort1533

"Combining the franchises serving Western England will simplify journey planning and improve services for passengers."

"The Greater Western franchise will operate under the SRA's new franchising policy that we announced today: we will be specifying what the franchisee should deliver and will work closely alongside them, to ensure consistent performance levels and high quality services. As part of the specification, there will be Business Units within the franchise which will ensure that we retain the focus on existing regions while reaping the performance, capacity and passenger service benefits that combining these franchises will bring."

"This is a process which will deliver improvements to services for passengers in the West of England, South Wales and the Thames Valley."

I am sorry, but sometimes one just has to accept that what goes around comes around.

Quotes from a recent National Express-related article (and its comments section) originally posted on this forum (link below) :
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23457587-details/To+hell+and+back+from+King%27s+Cross/article.do

"National Express have destroyed the East Coast mainline in just three months. They've given passengers free wi-fi, but they've ruined everything else. Somehow they've absconded with the new-ish trains that were previously on the route and have introduced decades-old rolling stock. They routinely cancel services (especially in the mornings) leaving you with the cumbersome refunds process and missed meetings in London. And, worst of all, they've decimated the fare structure put in place by GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways).

You simply can't get cheap tickets any more by booking ahead. Under GNER there was a fair selection of reduced-price singles that would make it easy to get to London and back for ^50 or less. Now you have virtually no alternative to a ^90 saver return, which itself comes with ludicrous conditions and creates a climate of fear about whether you're on the 'right' train.

At a time when there's so much publicity about the environmental problems of air travel and its relentless expansion, we're making it harder and harder for ordinary people to travel by train. When will this become a political issue?"

"Richard Bowker, who runs such a sorry show, should be deeply ashamed. He tells me: "We aim for the highest standards of customer service.We inherited a business at the bottom of the reliability league tables. We have a track record of transforming underperforming railways."

Well, you could have fooled me, Mr Bowker. And along with a lot of other people who try to bridge the North-South divide, I'd love to know what you intend to do about it."

I have many problems with the DfT's policy towards the railways, but I am thankful for small mercies, one of which is that Richard Bowker and the Several Redundant Accountants are no longer responsible for setting it.

Also, although the DfT must take a large share of the responsibility for all this, we shouldnt forget that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are by no means blameless. As well as making some cuts above and beyond what they had to do when bidding for the franchise and underestimating demand, what happened with Melksham/Transwilts is a very good example (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) , 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.

Quote from vacman earlier in this topic :

Fair comment graham, and Melksham may well be suffering, but by the end of next year most other routes on FGW will be seeing some major improvements and more trains than they've seen in over 50 years, one of them is Gunnislake and another I can't disclose yet as it's still in the finalising stage but it's a line that has had a sub standard service since before Melksham was even reopened.
As for Melksham I haven't heard anything from the "powers that be" for a while, but like I said, watch this space. Oh, and these improved services are not being funded by any third parties!

Good, and I for one cant wait to see that happen. However, if FGW really are in the business of funding significant service improvements off their own backs, then I heartily recommend the TransWilts as the perfect candidate to add to that list (link below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/pledge.html

That would go a long way to proving their sincerity in turning over a new leaf in my book.

[vacman]

But FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't be judged by the whole region for cutting a service to one station.

[Graz]

As has been mentioned before though it is not just Melksham station that would benefit but those who want another route to Swindon / Chippenham from the south without a cumbersome Bath Spa change. And as of my travelling experiences from Warminster have proven, a lot of people want this.

[grahame]

But FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't be judged by the whole region for cutting a service to one station.

Swindon. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Chippenham. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Trowbridge. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Westbury. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Dilton Marsh. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Warminster. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Salisbury. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Frome. Service to Swindon withdrawn.

Let's try a few more.

Romsey to Chippenham. Wesssex - 4, First - 0
Swindon to Southampton. Wessex - 4, First - 2
Southampton to Chippenham. Wessex - 3, First - 0

Which of these stations was the one you were referring to?  It is all to easy to be taken in by the propaganda that says only one station/town is effected!

[vacman]

But FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't be judged by the whole region for cutting a service to one station.

Swindon. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Chippenham. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Trowbridge. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Westbury. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Dilton Marsh. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Warminster. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Salisbury. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Frome. Service to Swindon withdrawn.

Let's try a few more.

Romsey to Chippenham. Wesssex - 4, First - 0
Swindon to Southampton. Wessex - 4, First - 2
Southampton to Chippenham. Wessex - 3, First - 0

Which of these stations was the one you were referring to?  It is all to easy to be taken in by the propaganda that says only one station/town is effected!

I was referring to Melksham, as all of the other stations you mention still have plenty of services to the main commuter towns of Bristol and Bath, yes it is wrong that the transwilts service is dire but there are hundreds of other stations and lines in the FGW area.

[Lee]

Also, although the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) must take a large share of the responsibility for all this, we shouldnt forget that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are by no means blameless. As well as making some cuts above and beyond what they had to do when bidding for the franchise and underestimating demand, what happened with Melksham/Transwilts is a very good example (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) , 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.

Quote from vacman earlier in this topic :

Fair comment graham, and Melksham may well be suffering, but by the end of next year most other routes on FGW will be seeing some major improvements and more trains than they've seen in over 50 years, one of them is Gunnislake and another I can't disclose yet as it's still in the finalising stage but it's a line that has had a sub standard service since before Melksham was even reopened.
As for Melksham I haven't heard anything from the "powers that be" for a while, but like I said, watch this space. Oh, and these improved services are not being funded by any third parties!

Good, and I for one cant wait to see that happen. However, if FGW really are in the business of funding significant service improvements off their own backs, then I heartily recommend the TransWilts as the perfect candidate to add to that list (link below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/pledge.html

That would go a long way to proving their sincerity in turning over a new leaf in my book.

But FGW can't be judged by the whole region for cutting a service to one station.

grahame and Graz have more than adequately addressed the "one station" misconception.

I wasnt judging FGW in the way you suggest. I welcome improvements elsewhere on the network and wish to encourage them to go further.

My point was more that what FGW did regarding the TransWilts was indicative of what you class as the "old" FGW attitude, and providing an appropriate TransWilts service would stand as an excellent example of what you class as the "new" FGW attitude.

[grahame]

Vacman - I've mentioned 10 stations out of about 210, and you've added another; I could find you three more at least which FGW^▸ (First Great Western) operate and have cut services to within 50 or 60 miles of where I live, but I know you would cry "exception" or "special case" to each of them.  I have, by the way, strongly studied the traffic flows of Bath / Bristol v Swindon.  And it's not the 15:1 which you would think from the relative level of services provided from Westbury / Trowbridge; something between 3:1 and 6:1 would be more like it - look at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) road congestion diagrams from West Wilts!

There IS a strong case for reviewing the level of service and the timings on lines and I am not a Luddite looking for a return to things as they were - indeed I feel that the timetable here is better than the one offered by Wessex trains. The evening trains are lost, the peak hour provision is stronger and the extra middle of the day service welcome.  Please visit here if you agree with me. And, yes, FGW will get plaudits for operating it to franchise punctuality and cancellation level criteria or better

[Lee]

The view from Ivybridge Rail Users Group (link below.)
http://www.irug.ik.com/news/6367106678.ikml

[ruthg]

But FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't be judged by the whole region for cutting a service to one station.

Swindon. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Chippenham. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Trowbridge. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Westbury. Transwilts service reduced by 60%, remainder uselessly timed
Dilton Marsh. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Warminster. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Salisbury. No services remaining at all to Swindon. From Swindon reduced by 50%
Frome. Service to Swindon withdrawn.

Let's try a few more.

Romsey to Chippenham. Wesssex - 4, First - 0
Swindon to Southampton. Wessex - 4, First - 2
Southampton to Chippenham. Wessex - 3, First - 0

Which of these stations was the one you were referring to?  It is all to easy to be taken in by the propaganda that says only one station/town is effected!

I was referring to Melksham, as all of the other stations you mention still have plenty of services to the main commuter towns of Bristol and Bath, yes it is wrong that the transwilts service is dire but there are hundreds of other stations and lines in the FGW area.

Bristol and Bath might be the main commuter towns for other stations on that line but there are a fair number of us from Frome trying to get to Chippenham and Swindon as well.
Since FGW took over the transwilts route, I know several people who have given up trying to catch the train from here, Warminster and Dilton Marsh, who now drive by car either all the way, or to Westbury and Trowbridge where you have more options.
The rest of us in Frome are frustrated by early starts 6.43 a.m. connecting at Westbury, when in the days of Wessex we used to have a straight through train leaving at 7.20 a.m. In addition connecting at Bath in the evening is stressful to say the least with either a connecting time of 7 minutes, which if you miss means you have an hour wait for the next Weymouth train, or you can get a much earlier train from Swindon and hang around at Bath for 40 minutes, unfortunately this in not much of an option when you're trying to work your contracted 7 or 8 hours a day.