FGW requests new franchise terms

[whole diary]

[The SprinterMeister]

Something that they are over spending on is a shortage of Train Crew, with crews being almost able to state their OWN terms of payments to work overtime, to prevent FGW^▸ (First Great Western) cancelling Trains due to Staff shortages.

This isn't happening anymore. It's true that some of us traincrew have made a little money out of the predicament that FGW had found themselves in, however paying the traincrew the extra money was still cheaper than any costs incurred from cancellation penalties etc. ( can i just add that I never held any resourcing managers to a ransom when being asked to do extra)

Maybe you didn't, but many did. October/November is always a good month in terms of driver resources - not many drivers are on holiday. Expect there to be one final round of enforced company generocity and greedy drivers taking advantage of it during December, before, hopefully, enough trainee's are passed out in time for next summer squeeze on resources.

The only problem being that at least two trainee drivers have recently been passed out on the wrong type of rolling stock.....
 

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

is it impossible to build diesel units that also run on electric wires or 3rd rail

[John R]

No, but it's expensive and inefficient. One of the (many) advantages of electric traction is that you aren't carrying all the weight of the engines around with you. But obviously you are if you build a hybrid unit.  And when running on diesel you've got the electric traction kit weight to pull as well. And of course it costs more to build the unit in the first place, and try and fit everything in.

So its not practical on a multiple unit, though 3rd rail locomotives had small diesel engines included to enable them to work away from the current, typically in sidings where it wouldn't be a terribly good idea to have third rail. 

   

[Lee]

Fears are being expressed over National Express East Coast's ability to meet its franchise premium payments commitment (link below.)
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/10/16/downturn-could-derail-east-coast-train-service-61634-22045613/

Hmmm, I don't think NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast) will be the only ones finding it a challenge to meet their premium payment commitments over the next few years.

National Express East Coast is expected to give an upbeat view of its prospects in Thursday's trading update (link below.)
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-and-markets/article.html?in_article_id=455775&in_page_id=3

See link below.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22122346-a19b-11dd-a32f-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

[12hoursunday]

is it impossible to build diesel units that also run on electric wires or 3rd rail

already been done. The Class 73 can operate from a 750 V DC^▸ (Direct Current) third-rail supply but also have a diesel engine to allow them to operate on non-electrified routes.

[eightf48544]

Good to hear for the 73s, their Diesel engine although only 600hp  was a similar design of English Electric unit as the Thumpers.

However, although not fast on diesel I've seen them pull the Sussex Scot from Clapham to Reading on diesel and push a Cross Country complete with 47 on the front from Basingstoke to Reading.

But to get back tio the thread. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) bid for the franchise, so tough, it was their decision to bid so they have to live with it. I thought that's what capitalism was all about, you take a risk you succeed or fail.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Good to hear for the 73s, their Diesel engine although only 600hp  was a similar design of English Electric unit as the Thumpers.

However, although not fast on diesel I've seen them pull the Sussex Scot from Clapham to Reading on diesel and push a Cross Country complete with 47 on the front from Basingstoke to Reading.

But to get back tio the thread. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) bid for the franchise, so tough, it was their decision to bid so they have to live with it. I thought that's what capitalism was all about, you take a risk you succeed or fail.

but the way i understand it is that if fgw makes a profit and chooses to purchase rolling stock to ease over crowding they cant?

[John R]

But to get back tio the thread. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) bid for the franchise, so tough, it was their decision to bid so they have to live with it. I thought that's what capitalism was all about, you take a risk you succeed or fail.

And sod the passengers for the next 7 years? If a franchise clearly isn't working then it's in our interests that it's renegotiated.

[grahame]

And sod the passengers for the next 7 years?

I'm afraid that the whole franchising system contains an elements of that, where it encourages maximisation of return to the Treasury and the shareholders of private companies, with the hurdle that's to be reached being a contracted service level committment which is often ill thought out and doesn't allow for the future / changing circumstances and the ability (desirability) to grow traffic.

If a franchise clearly isn't working then it's in our interests that it's renegotiated.

Provided that the re-negotiation provides a better service level commitment, then there could be something to be said for that.  But if it's just to provide more money to the company that took the commercial risk, or to tax them less (via the franchise payment, for that is a stealth tax on travel) then I have serious misgivings.

Some of the current discussions strike me as odd ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've seen it stated that First are looking for more money because they're having more passengers travel than were planned?   Doesn't a business benefit disproportionately from an increase in business - in other words, if I had (say) 30% more training course bookings than I had planned, wouldn't I be able to do a better job and more efficient job ... and if my delegates were paying me, surely I would not have to raise my prices ?

[super tm]

Yes but think of it this way.  Your training course runs 90% full.  If you take on another 20% of business then you would have a problem because you would not be able to accomodate them ! So you would hire new rooms etc.  However this would not make commercial sense as you would now be making a loss on the as the second course would only run 10% full.

I think this is what FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are saying.  The local service that they want to increase dont actually make money.  They are subsidised by the inter city trains.  When the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) and SWT^▸ (South West Trains) cuts take place  there will be large gaps in the service.  FGW is not contracted to fill these gaps.  So they are saying to the government that if you want them to fill the gaps more subsidy will be needed.  After all why should FGW provide the extra services.  Why not XC or SWT?

So the cuts will go ahead and there will be nothing else to replace them unless the government wishes to provide more subsidy.  Bit like the Melksham situation where a good service was cut because the government would not provide the necessary subsidy.

[John R]

And sod the passengers for the next 7 years?

I'm afraid that the whole franchising system contains an elements of that, where it encourages maximisation of return to the Treasury and the shareholders of private companies, with the hurdle that's to be reached being a contracted service level committment which is often ill thought out and doesn't allow for the future / changing circumstances and the ability (desirability) to grow traffic.

If a franchise clearly isn't working then it's in our interests that it's renegotiated.

Provided that the re-negotiation provides a better service level commitment, then there could be something to be said for that.  But if it's just to provide more money to the company that took the commercial risk, or to tax them less (via the franchise payment, for that is a stealth tax on travel) then I have serious misgivings.

Some of the current discussions strike me as odd ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've seen it stated that First are looking for more money because they're having more passengers travel than were planned?   Doesn't a business benefit disproportionately from an increase in business - in other words, if I had (say) 30% more training course bookings than I had planned, wouldn't I be able to do a better job and more efficient job ... and if my delegates were paying me, surely I would not have to raise my prices ?

My point was to renegotiate if it gives a more acceptable service to passengers. If it's simply to line the coffers of the company that screwed up their bid then I agree it shouldn't happen.

[grahame]

My point was to renegotiate if it gives a more acceptable service to passengers. If it's simply to line the coffers of the company that screwed up their bid then I agree it shouldn't happen.

I think we're on the same wavelength, then John ... but there is the need to most careful to ensure that changes are more acceptable to passengers (and people who want to be passengers, but cannot be at the moment) rather than less acceptable. I'm afraid that I don't trust the decision makers on either side to put the travelling public first in such decisions, based on things like experience of SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) changes that have been made since the franchise was awarded which have significantly worsened the provision ... and I see no consultation or truely independent and meaningful mechanisms in place that would police a renegotiation.

Super-tm.   Thanks for your comments and there is much in what you say. I fully appreciate that proving more lossmaking services could, in some circumastances, lead to a bigger loss. But there are countercomments to some elements.

I can recall the stage where we moved up from 2 to 3 full time employees at our place - and what a huge step that was, and there were big extra investments needed.  But now that we're a little larger, it's not such a meteoric change to upside and downsize, and courses (like trains) can be modestly increased in frequency and don't always have to be doubled once you have the extra volume.   We're still pretty small; FGW^▸ (First Great Western) run (what) around 750 carriages, so they have good granularity for change. 

A town like Trowbridge, population around 28,000, is served by 5 trains an hour on average, and I would call that a good schedule (even though may of up have been denied boarding there because of insufficient capacity).  But I think you're stretching it a bit to describe a service of 1 train every 2 hours - a tenth of that of Trowbridge - for a town three quarters of the size as "Good". That's what the former Melksham service was. However - it was close to the best service that could be offered with the resources of a single train, and indeed I heartily commend the draft timetable (that, alas, is not happening from this December) of six round trips on the TransWilts as again being close to the best that can be done with a single train. Sorry to appear to pick you up on this, but as written you could be suggesting that Trowbridge be cut back to a service every 3 hours to Bristol and every 3 hours to Portsmouth, and that you would consider that to be a good service 

There's no easy answer here and there will be shades of grey ... I just wish there was an effective traveller's voice and that the traveller had at least equal consideration at the negotiating table.

[G.Uard]

The local service that they want to increase dont actually make money.  They are subsidised by the inter city trains. 

Yes to  a point perhaps, but local services earn a high level of subsidy from Government, which is presumably what made the Wessex Trains franchise so  attractive to FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

[Tim]

The local service that they want to increase dont actually make money.  They are subsidised by the inter city trains. 

Yes to  a point perhaps, but local services earn a high level of subsidy from Government, which is presumably what made the Wessex Trains franchise so  attractive to FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

The local services do attract subsidy but only as part of the overall franchise.  Say the subsidy is 80p per local passenger carried.  If First carries an extra 100 local passengers, it doesn't get ^80 extra from the government.  It is the service specified in the franchise spec that is subsidised not individual passenger journeys.   In some ways it would make sense for the subsidy to follow the passenger, but no doubt such a method of applying a subsidy would also be problematic

[G.Uard]

Thanks for the info Tim. I  probably shouldn't be saying this, but just what motive, apart from increased revenue, can FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have to provide longer trains if they are not subsidised per additional passenger?  The cost of a hybrid 158 for example, could well outweigh the benefits in revenue.