First got it wrong admits Transport Minister

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

And they weren't the only ones who got it wrong mate. Typical passing the buck politician!

From today's Western Daily Press:

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=146238&command=displayContent&sourceNode=146064&contentPK=17262276&folderPk=100268&pNodeId=145795

Rail passengers did face unacceptable delays after the First Great Western timetable fiasco, Transport Minister Tom Harris has admitted.

Mr Harris will unveil a new ^3 million platform today at Bristol Parkway that will aim to bring extra train services through the station. But he confessed that there had been "major problems" with rail services because operator First Great Western had underestimated the number of carriages needed to meet demand.

The company was slam- med by commuters and politicians earlier this year for the poor services across the West, including delays, overcrowding and higher prices.

It led to protesters taking fake tickets on board trains and refusing to pay fares on a day of action in January.

Speaking to the Western Daily Press ahead of the today's platform opening, Mr Harris said: "First underestimated the amount of rolling stock it needed from last September, which led to unacceptable delays at the time.

"But First have now made more rolling stock available which should make a major difference to passengers in the next few weeks."

It was revealed recently that a new timetable was being planned by First to relieve pressure on packed trains and provide extra services.

In a review to mark its first anniversary, First Great Western's managing director Alison Forster said it had not been an easy year.

Over the next few months the company is planning to provide more rolling stock to ease pressure on packed trains and to refurbish the interior of existing trains.

It is also planning to increase the catering provision on trains from London and to get more managers on trains to improve the quality of services on board.

Mr Harris said there is a brighter future for rail passengers in the West as extra investment is pumped into the region.

He said: "More and more people want to use the rail network in the South West.

"So the challenge is for the Government and local authorities to make sure we have the resources and use them properly.

"Historically, there has been under investment in the rail network, no where more so than in the South West.

"But this is changing now with ^750m of investment, which will see extra choice and extra reliability for rail users."

Bristol Parkway station will benefit from ^10m of funding from Network Rail to pay for two new platforms.

The money is part of a ^2.4 billion programme of rail expansion over the next two years.

Parkway station's new platforms should increase capacity, reducing delays when trains are forced to stop and queue for space at peak travel times.

The third platform, which will be unveiled today cost just over ^3m and a fourth platform costing about ^7m on the former Royal Mail site is at the planning stage.

Mr Harris added: "I don't want people to have unrealistic expectations about Parkway, but this new platform will increase capacity and will allow more trains to come through this bottle neck.

"This will mean a better service and a more reliable service."

ENDS

[Lee]

Mr Harris will unveil a new ^3 million platform today at Bristol Parkway that will aim to bring extra train services through the station. But he confessed that there had been "major problems" with rail services because operator First Great Western had underestimated the number of carriages needed to meet demand.

This is just recycled rubbish.

Apart from tweaks to the existing timetable , NO extra services are planned through Bristol Parkway station. As for the capacity problem , FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are aiming to solve this through the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) reconfiguration agreed with the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).

In my view , a more realistic assessment can be found below :

It would certainly be interesting to see Trowbridge ticket sales figures over the past 12 months.

My mind wanders back to the links below , from the time that the December 2006 timetable started.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6169077.stm

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/12/timetable_means_trains_too_ful.html

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/12/stranded_commuters_vent_fury_a.html

An interesting quote :

"Trowbridge town councillor Graham Hedley, who tried to board the train in the county town, said: "The vast majority of the people on the platform were left behind feeling very angry and very cold."

Cllr Hedley had his ticket refunded by staff at the station who had given up issuing new tickets because of the volume of people already waiting to board trains.

"May I suggest that this reduction in carriages and services will not only lead to overcrowding but will also, at first, lead to many people being left behind on a regular basis," he said.

"This will, fairly quickly, lead to a great many people leaving the rail transport system and getting back into their cars - an interesting green policy."

It could well be that Councillor Hedley was right , and this is exactly what has happened.

There are also some very interesting December 2006 quotes from Andrew Griffiths from the above links :

"We have had some full trains this morning."

"The capacity is there and we do need to persuade people to use high speed trains."

"We are very concerned that people have been left behind and understand that Oldfield Park station is one of the worst affected,"

"For the first few days of the new timetable we have been monitoring the problems that have arisen."

"However, we only have a finite number of trains for the morning services so it's a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul."

"I would like to assure passengers that we are looking into the problems and are trying to make sure that all services run as efficiently as possible."

"We have provided a bus service for Keynsham passengers travelling to Bristol but of course to do this at Oldfield Park would be more difficult,"

At the March 20 2007 West Wiltshire District Council meeting , Andrew Griffiths said that including peak - time Keynsham & Oldfield Park HST stops in the December 2007 timetable would solve the seat capacity problem for passengers further down the line.

This , I would suggest , is due to the following issue highlighted by Save The Train in December 2006 (link below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=836.msg2405#msg2405

Some quotes :

"The official rail watchdog, Passenger Focus, says the number of commuters taking trains west from Cardiff after 5pm appears to have fallen. Surveys are being undertaken to establish whether this is because of workers using up annual leave before the end of the year, or because commuters have switched from rail to road transport."

"For me this is one of the big concerns.  Will all these problems simply drive customers away, then in a couple of months time FGW will turn round and say everything is coping and the trains are not as overcrowded as they were."

"We are hopeful that after May the minister will insist on a review of the services run in the west and will put the required amount of resources into the trains serving Freshford, Avoncliff, Trowbridge, Melksham and Bath, so we can get trains back."

"What worries me is that the DfT / FGW may be planning to let this continue until May 2007 in order to force passengers off the trains. They can then claim that usage has declined across the board."

Not sure if it's just me, but there seems a distinct lack of passengers at the moment. 0723 Warminster-Cardiff was very empty this morning, at a guess 30% before Bath and probably no more than 50% afterwards.

'Good grief an empty train' was one remark a passenger made when he got on at Bath. Formation was 1 x 150 and 1 X 158.

Also a couple of people doing monitoring at Filton, passenger focus?

The many cancellations due to "lack of servicible trains" during the late 2006 / early 2007 period are also likely to have taken their toll.

Also , I have received this from MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain) :

Dear train user

This is an update bringing you the latest train campaign news.

First, please check out : www.moretrainlessstrain.org.uk. The news pages have just been updated and now carry lots of information about our move to a national campaign.

THE LOCAL PICTURE is as you know that the train service from Bath to  Bristol has improved to what for most people has become an 'acceptably bad' service. Basically it is slightly better than it was in December and January, and becuse of this, most people have become resigned to it, though once or twice every week there is usually a nasty shock to remind you that the service is being run on a shoestring with clapped out rolling stock. If you are commuting from Frome, or betwen Chippenham and Swindon, or get on at Oldfield Park or Keynsham you are reminded much more often that the service is atrocious.

FGW has stated that they will not buy any new trains during their franchise. This despite their parent company First being the richest of all the train providing companies as a result of buying bus and train companies from Spain to America, and running a virtual transport monopoly in much of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). FGW claim they will improve the timetable in December. We  reserve judgement , but how will they run a better timetable with no more coaches, unless their trains become shorter once again?

That is why MTLS is still here.

Following the Fare Strike, FGW has established a very poor reputation which has stuck. The Guardian recently devoted a full page to the faults and failures of FGW and also publised our move to a national campaign.There has been further excellent publicity in other national and  local media, continuing to put FGW under pressure.

WHY WE ARE GOING NATIONAL

The problem we suffer at the hands could be partly lessened if FGW wasn't such a poorly run and greedy company, but the governement bears repsonsibity too, and this is a national issue. People have contacted us suffering similar problems from Oxford, Brighton, Portsomouth, Cambridge, Essex and beyond. We are therefore launching NO WAY TO RUN A RAILWAY DAY in late September after the next planned fare rises with  a number of coordinated Fare Strikes and other protests in key cities across the UK. This will generate huge publicity and put the department for transport under more pressure to  remove failing rail comanies and to re- advertise franchises with a higher level of minimum of service, or to take failing franchises back into public ownership.

READ MORE ABOUT IT on our our website: www.moretrainlessstrain.org.uk

WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW:

1) In the next few months it is crucial that we make contact with more potential campaigners  in large cities especially in the midlands and North of England, who may be willing to help to organise their own fare strike on No Way to Run a Railway day. If you can find or know any useful regional contacts please email their details to us at contact@moretrainlessstrain.co.uk

2) Come to our monthly meetings upstairs at the Rummer pub, 6 Newmarket Row, Bath, first Tuesday of every month from 6:15 to 7:15.  We need your input and help, especially with No Way to Run a Railway Day. Next meeting 5th June.

3) Please continue to write to your MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) and tell them about FGW''s poor service.

4) We hope to be producing a leaflet shortly to give out to train passengers. We will need your help to distribute them

5) Log on to the forum on the website to exchange and share your ideas and experiences.

Best wishes, and may all your journeys be on time (Chance would be a fine thing)

[Lee]

Things are looking brighter for First elsewhere , though (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6640627.stm

First Capital Connect , who serve commuter routes into London , is to provide more rolling stock to reduce overcrowding.

Managing director Elaine Holt said: "We have been working on solutions to overcrowding since we took over the franchise for the routes a year ago."

A recent survey revealed that more than 800 people travel every day on trains designed to carry 550 passengers.

Ms Holt said that the company was aware of this when they took over the franchise and ordered new trains and set out to review timetables.

"However, it takes time to upgrade the infrastructure on the lines, increase the capacity of the power supply and extend platforms for longer trains."

"All this is under way and now we are bringing in the new trains. Our aim is to give passengers a more comfortable journey,"

[tramway]

Just wondering how many DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) employees used FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) trains daily who were part of the team setting the franchise specification. 

[Jim]

Just wondering how many DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) employees used FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) trains daily who were part of the team setting the franchise specification. 

Not as many as use ours 

[CJ Harrison]

I don^t think it matters one iota what Mr Harris says. Most people I speak to know the truth: namely that many of the problems have been caused by his Department and its meddlesome and bungling ways. Even if First did underestimate capacity ^ which I don^t believe it did because the Department effectively built in capacity cuts to the franchise specification ^ then Mr Harris^ Department endorsed that underestimation when they awarded them the contract. So, they have only themselves to blame.

Yes, First Great Western did get things wrong at the start of the franchise and they could have done things better, but the underlying issues come from the Department and the way in which it organises and runs our rail system. As such, Mr Harris^ categorical refusal to accept any responsibility is disgraceful. His inability to see the wider picture and start to explore ways of how the rail network can be improved by changing the structure and systems is negligent.

The bottom line is this. We simply should not have politicians getting involved with the running of the rail network. They don^t know what they^re doing and they act in ignorance of the situation on the ground. And, when their mistakes cause problems they simply pass the buck to someone else. This, unfortunately, is not unique to Mr Harris or the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) - it is a symptom of government as a whole, and of this current administration in particular.

[courgettelawn]

I agree with the previous post.  In addition I would say that those who blanketly argue for nationalisation are mistaken unless we get a radical-enough government in power (not likely in the next decade).  The road lobby still control transport issues in this country and that's an impossible wall to overcome at the moment.

I would advocate train operators running like mutual building societies in the that interest (stakeholders if you like) in them are the people who use the trains - passengers.  All profits are immediately re-invested in the line and the stock.  I would also advocate that train operators should have responsibility for maintaining the portions of track and signaling in their area with cross-country operators contributing financially to this.  Currently, the mis-match between regional operators run by transport groups that actually have interests across the country (like First) and nationally-based Network Rail who sub-contract so much no one knows what's going in, simply does not and cannot work no matter how much fiddling is done.  And it's wasting money.  Last week the British Medical Authority stated that they wanted to remove political interference in the running of the NHS, perhaps we as rail users should advocate the same?

I don't think even the Green Party have thought through their rail policy properly.  Perhaps it's up to those of us who use and believe in a rail future to do so?  It's certainly something I will be spending the next few years researching.

[Lee]

I would advocate train operators running like mutual building societies in the that interest (stakeholders if you like) in them are the people who use the trains - passengers.  All profits are immediately re-invested in the line and the stock.

If a viable way of setting this up could be found , then that does sound like an idea worth exploring.

I agree with the previous post.  In addition I would say that those who blanketly argue for nationalisation are mistaken unless we get a radical-enough government in power (not likely in the next decade).

I dont think that even the unions are arguing for nationalisation in the blanket way that you describe , favouring instead an evolutionary process aimed at bringing the franchises "in - house" as they expire. Rumour has it that Network Rail is looking into adopting a similiar approach , although this is denied (links below.)

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/540.shtml

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/rmt_welcomes_call_for_reintegr.html#mor

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/secret_talks_open_way_to_natio.html#more

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/scotland_may_end_private_rail.html#more

http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/thursday_morning_stock_market.html#more

This is an argument which goes far wider than Greater Western; it applies to all franchises. The question is, how many franchises, if they were organised differently, would suddenly become profitable? I don^t know the answer, but I suspect that at least some would see a change in their financial status. For example, at the moment train leasing costs come straight off the bottom line. If franchises were longer (or permanent) then there would be more incentive for TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to own their own rolling stock. This would mean that stock would be classed as an asset and only the depreciation costs would come off the balance sheet. Alternatively, finance leases could be used which would have a similar impact as they have a different financial treatment to operating leases which are the ones most commonly used today. Another example would be the use of assets. If there was vertical integration then I have no doubt that the railway companies could sweat their assets far more than they currently do. Stations, for example, are areas of prime footfall. They are, therefore, ideal for commercial development which would yield returns to their owners. This ^sweating^ doesn^t happen at the moment because most TOCs lease stations from Network Rail, so there is no incentive for them to implement extensive development programmes.

As much as I admire the way that CJ puts forward his arguments , it should be remembered that "vertical integration" as he proposes (the uniting of all aspects of running the railway under the control of TOC's) is , in effect , a policy of full privatisation , an approach much favoured by think - tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute.

Quote from the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

"In Britain, Margaret Thatcher was replaced by John Major as leader of the Conservative Party at the end of 1990. The Thatcher administration had already sold off nearly all the former state-owned industries, apart from the national rail network. Although the previous Transport Secretary and arch-Thatcherite Cecil Parkinson had advocated some form of privately or semi-privately operated rail network, this was deemed 'a privatisation too far' by Thatcher herself. In its manifesto for the 1992 General Election the Conservatives included a commitment to privatise the railways, but were not specific about how this objective was to be achieved. They unexpectedly won the election on 9 April 1992, and consequently had to develop a plan to carry out the privatisation before the Railways Bill was published the next year. The management of British Rail strongly advocated privatisation as one entity, a British Rail plc in effect; Prime Minister John Major favoured the resurrection of something like the old "Big Four" geographical railway companies that had existed before 1948; however, the Treasury, under the influence of the Adam Smith Institute think tank advocated the creation of seven, later 25, passenger railway franchises as a way of maximising revenue. As is usual in British politics, the Treasury view prevailed."

"The Railways Bill, published in 1993, established a complex - some say over-complex - structure for the rail industry. British Rail was to be broken up into over 100 separate companies, with most relationships between the successor companies established by contracts, some through regulatory mechanisms (such as the industry-wide network code and the multi-bilateral star model performance regime). Contracts for the use of railway facilities - track, stations and light maintenance depots - must be approved or directed by the Office of Rail Regulation, although some facilities are exempt from this requirement. Contracts between the principal passenger train operators and the state are called franchise agreements, and were first established with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF), then its successor the Strategic Rail Authority and now with the Secretary of State for Transport."

Before I would even consider going down this road , I would need serious convincing that those who advocate it know what they are doing. Given the Adam Smith Institute's pivotal role in creating the mess that we currently find ourselves in , this could be easier said than done.

Quote from a well - informed source , made at the time when "lack of serviceable trains" was causing the bustitution of certain FGW^▸ (First Great Western) branch lines  :

"Simply look at the buses parked outside the stations as the 158s go to store at Eastleigh. I also refer you to Mr. Armitt's public statement made to the Guardian just before Christmas (http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/12/take_a_taxi_in_the_country_say.html#more) , made at the same time as we were being told to plan in buses on certain routes. This was also mentioned by the current DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) head of the Rail Department.

The bus replacement started last Thursday. The GW^▸ (Great Western) Franchise is seen as the testbed for all the others. It also suits the Governments aim in curbing the leasing companies if they can force their assets into periods of non-earning storage.

Some 60 lines across the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) were seen as prime candidates for trains being replaced by buses. These 60 routes include Exmouth-Barnstaple via Exeter, The Looe Branch, Gunnislake Branch, Newquay Branch and even the St. Ives Branch (This last one even in Winter is well loaded). It is simple economics according to the Whitehall crowd. Even with packed trains every day, buses and even taxis are cheaper in terms of pounds spent. No train leases to pay, no track to maintain (and repair after flooding), less staff to employ, less safety regulation to enforce, and no risk to Labour seats, as most of the areas affected have no Labour MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament).

Either someone else pays or it shuts.

It is then cheaper to subsidise buses for a year or two, until ridership on those becomes so low, that they too can be withdrawn on the grounds of no demand.

So there you have it. Of course it doesn't have to be like this. In British Rail days the annual rail subsidy was approximately ^1 billion but since privatisation this has soared to somewhere in the region of ^5 billion. Hardly surprising really when you split one organisation (BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))) into 100 pieces. In a nutshell the current organisation of the railways is expensive to run and always will be. What the politicians need to be doing is coming up with an alternative organisation that costs less money to run. If they could do that then all the threatened lines could probably stay open. Instead they've decided to try close some lines and leave the expensive-to-run organisation in place. Welcome to Britain."

The road lobby still control transport issues in this country and that's an impossible wall to overcome at the moment.

I would take a more optimistic view. While this has undoubtably been the case in the past , I think that the advent of passenger - led groups such as MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain) & Save The Train , who have shown an impressive ability to "punch above their weight" , is gradually changing this.

To be honest , I have yet to decide which way forward I think the railways should go. What I do know for certain though is that forums such as these , run and contributed to by those who ACTUALLY USE the trains and putting forward well - argued proposals on that basis , can only be a good thing.

Let the debate continue!

[courgettelawn]

A bit tardy to respond to this thread but musing still on the idea of train operators running as 'mutuals', I wonder if people would be willing to 'subscribe' to certain service networks to start an initial investment?  I think I would be.