I was just wondering if there was any significance in the 15 months, approx 1 month into the May 2009 timetable.
I think the answer to that question could well be found in the article links quoted below :
^The DfT» will give us 12 to 18 months to sort it out. I think we can do that,^ says the First source, who adds that chief executive Moir Lockhead is now so deeply concerned by the Swindon team^s performance that he will throw in whatever resources are needed to sort it out. If they need a couple of hundred more drivers and train crew, he says, they will get them. If the company fails to make a profit for the next three or four years, so be it, he says.
Although First seem keen to deny this type of view, it could actually be a very "good news story" for them. The timescale fits in with the 15 month monitoring period set by the DfT, and could suggest that their is no immediate prospect of them losing their franchise.
The timescale also ends at the time that the extra units allocated by the DfT in their rolling stock plan are likely to be transferred to
FGW▸ , and it would be natural for the department to be absolutely sure that they are sticking with FGW before that rolling stock transfer takes place.
So why are First so keen to deny this type of view? My guess is that the following have something to do with it :
A more junior manager in the head office in Swindon describes the First Great Western brand as fatally flawed. ^South West Trains once had a reputation as bad as ours,^ he says, ^and it took about seven years to turn it around. They did it and their brand is now very good. But it^s a huge task for this company.^
He says there is a view inside the Milford Street building a stone^s throw from Swindon station that there is a political motive to get First out of the franchise. ^A strike, some bad luck, and we could be out.^ Maybe that^s the paranoia of demoralised staff who have felt under siege for two years; certainly the impression outside is that any further punishment is unlikely to be that harsh.
First would naturally want to stamp out any panic in the ranks as quickly as possible.
^The reputational damage of this to FirstGroup is actually far more of a problem than the ^29m we have been told to spend,^ says another senior insider at the company. ^Frankly, ^29m is neither here nor there for a group with a ^5bn annual turnover and 135,000 staff all over the world. We run some very good railways ^ First ScotRail and First TransPennine Express ^ and our good name is being sullied by what^s happening on Great Western. So we have absolutely got to get it sorted out. ^
"Reputational damage" is largely down to how passengers, politicians and the media view FGW every time something goes wrong. Yes, we can have intelligent and valid discussions about the DfT, Network Rail and others role in this, but at the end of the day, it is FGW's name on the side of the trains.
The DfT (and indeed all government departments) watch how such issues affect public opinion, and place particular weight on the media coverage that results.
It will be interesting to see what effect any slip-ups have on FGW's position in the next 15 months.
Click on the map to explore geographics
