Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling Chef, Pullman - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[stuving]

She's done an excellent job of skirting around answering that question.

In part, the answer is all in this bit:

  It is up to the operators to specify...

... though that makes the preceding sentence a bit odd:

I have discussed in great detail what the franchising and catering capabilities will be.

- why did she spend so much time over something that her department leaves to the operator?

If you go and look at the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) tender requirements, "passenger experience" is to be addressed in "delivery plan 5.1" for which it says:

5.7.1.3 The Department requires a Franchise Operator who will deliver a high standard
of customer services, including by:

• Meeting the NRPS^▸ (Numerical Rating Pain Score (patient discomfort scale)) benchmarks in the Franchise Agreement;
  
• Maintaining a high standard of cleanliness, presentation and quality of
  facilities and services, including in Challenging Circumstances;
  
• Training staff to deliver high standards of customer service;
  
• Providing appropriate and timely information to all customers before and
  during their journeys, including at times of disruption;
  
• Participating in cross-industry initiatives to enable customers to make
  informed travel choices at times of disruption or when special events cause
  unusually high demand;
  
• Providing appropriate on-board catering services, which meet the needs of
  passengers; and
  Working with Network Rail, the rail industry and/or telecoms service
  providers, to improve mobile communication services (data and voice) for
  passengers (including without limitation by taking advantage of
  improvements by third parties of mobile coverage on the rail infrastructure)

(I've left the other, non-catering, items in too as they may be of interest as well just now.)

The Numerical Rating Pain Score (patient discomfort scale) (NRPS) benchmark for customer service rises from 76.5% to 82% over the next ten years. I imagine that means something to those concerned, though I have no idea what. DP5.1 has a 12.5% overall weighting in the scoring of the beauty contest.

The Prospectus, which was produced for potential bidders before the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) process, describes the existing service offered, where it includes this:

4.6.1 The customer offering
ECML^s customer proposition has been developed consistently since 2010,
delivering improvements in the following areas:

On-board catering
When customers travel First Class with ECML, they now enjoy
an at-seat complimentary food and drink service which was
introduced in 2011. This offering includes a full meal service on
longer journeys, with drinks and snacks on journeys of less than
70 minutes.

A range of hot and cold food, drinks, snacks, confectionary,
alcoholic drinks and magazines are available to Standard
Class customers from the Caf^Bar and a trolley service
is also provided on each service through the Standard
accommodation.

Both First and Standard menus are regularly changed and
feature locally sourced produce from along the route, such as
bacon and sausages from an award-winning Yorkshire butcher.
Popular beverage brands such as Yorkshire Tea and Starbucks
Coffee have also been introduced.

(This is from the partial version published on line by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).)

It does not give any hints on whether this is good, bad, essential, or nice to have. This document is more specific about the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) agreements that a franchisee has to sign, and where they may be varied:

Following selection at PQQ stage, bidders will be invited to discuss their ideas for
variations to the train design with Agility. We anticipate that shortlisted bidders will
be able to visit the design mock-up and meet with representatives of Hitachi.

While the Department is willing to consider a range of variations, the changes that
we would accept will be limited. We would be open to variations in the ratio of first
to standard class accommodation and to changes in kitchen layout for example.
We would be unlikely to consider any variation which delivers a worsening of
passenger experience such as a reduction in passenger or luggage space or a
reduction in train capacity

That wording seems a bit odd, given that the IEP specification included four catering layouts and demanded that they can be changed for a new franchise, and seating has to be even more easily changeable.

There may be something that says whether, to what extent, and how an operator can prevented from dropping something they promised and were scored on in the beauty contest - but I have not come across it.

Of course none of the above applies to FGW^▸ (First Great Western), as they have not been through this franchise process. And the minister didn't say what modified rules apply to their gap-filler contract.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[ChrisB]

^Providing appropriate on-board catering services, which meet the needs of
passengers

(my emphasis)

This is the key; I very much suspect that low sales means what is offered is not meeting the needs of passengers, whereas decent sales probably is.
I suspect the Travelling Chef sales figures are extremely low, for example.

[grahame]

I very much suspect that low sales means what is offered is not meeting the needs of passengers, whereas decent sales probably is. I suspect the Travelling Chef sales figures are extremely low, for example.

It would be very difficult to argue for the same level and type of catering on all the various different journey lengths from London ...
120 miles to Bristol
195 miles to Leeds
216 miles to Plymouth
282 miles to Newcastle
413 miles to Edinburgh
545 miles to Aberdeen
... and there is - has been raised elsewhere - a balance between various best uses of space - catering, more seats, more cycles.

[bobm]

I suspect the Travelling Chef sales figures are extremely low, for example.

They are nil - Travelling Chefs were withdrawn last November.

[ChrisB]

of course! before they were withdrawn....

[didcotdean]

Is Doughty sponsored by the unions, per chance?

His website says: "He is a trade union member, and a proud member of the Cooperative Party."

The Co-op Party wants "railways run as a partnership between passengers and staff.".

[Super Guard]

She's done an excellent job of skirting around answering that question.

I think in terms of catering (particularly Travelling Chef) the honest answer would be - "there is very little demand from customers for the service, it is losing money, and therefore FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are cutting back/removing it".....it's a simple commercial decision.....unfortunately that has implications for the staff concerned but that I am afraid, is life..........I have yet to hear howls of outrage from customers who are being deprived of the facility to spend large amounts of money on pretty ordinary food.

It's obviously incumbent on any Trade Union to represent its members interest but there needs to be a dose of reality before rattling the sabres too loudly.

Putting aside your antipathy towards unions, rail staff and criticism about FGW's catering offerings and pricing, catering makes a loss whether it's a trolley or a buffet.  Many routes operated potentially make a loss.  TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are running a public service.  Sometimes they have to provide a service and money has nothing to do with it, because it's in the public interest.

Is offering catering in the public interest?  Of course.  So offer the best possible service to the customers - it doesn't need to be a race to the bottom.  The union arguments are about providing a better service, not about protecting staff jobs -- there are currently 2 catering staff on a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) (1 at weekends), and this is not (as far as I know) going to change while offering a 1st class trolley and a standard class trolley.  It amuses me that I read positive comments (elsewhere) when airlines offer a bar service, giving people the opportunity to escape their seats and have a change of scene, rather than being forced to stay at their seats and have a trolley walk by.  I've travelled through France on the TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) and while the views were delightful from my seat, the fact I could sit in the buffet area and watch the world go by, and chat to other passengers only enhanced the experience.

Even the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) has moved on from Travelling Chef.  Yes of course they were going to make a bit of noise about Travelling Chef's, as you say they'd be letting members down, but ask anyone on the inside, and while disappointing, I don't think there was much shock between staff, especially with the increased Pullman services and protection offered regarding pay and conditions.

On a side point, I see the rail minister chose to ignore discussing the DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) and safety argument, which ultimately is far more important to everyone.

[ChrisB]

While running a service is definitely in the public interest, catering is far less so these days, with shops on pretty much every station those trains with catering would call at. So by supplying outlets at these stations IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), covers any public need. Also, these shops tend to hold a better choice of items that trolleys or buffets.

[Network SouthEast]

While running a service is definitely in the public interest, catering is far less so these days, with shops on pretty much every station those trains with catering would call at. So by supplying outlets at these stations IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), covers any public need. Also, these shops tend to hold a better choice of items that trolleys or buffets.

That only really works if you start your journey at such a station. If you started from a smaller station such as Taplow, on to a connection at Reading with 10 minutes allowance, you might not have time to do so. Even then, big stations like Bristol have woeful retail provision in the evenings.

Even those boarding at Paddington might have come straight from a taxi, tube or bus and have limited time to do much more than board their train!

[ChrisB]

well, make some time then....why should the tax payer pick up the cost of your inability to plan your day?

[bobm]

That's a little harsh.  What if your starting service only runs hourly or even two hourly and gives you that 10 minute connection,  Are you going to leave an extra hour or two earlier so you have 70 or 130 minutes to buy some food?  Yes you can take homemade sandwiches but I for one don't want to get into carrying flasks of hot drinks.

[ChrisB]

buy before you get on the first train? I do that regularly

[bobm]

Agreed, as I said for cold food, but what if you are changing onto a train for a three hour plus journey? Hot drink or hot food becomes more of a need.

[ChrisB]

Then allow enough changing time (anywhere you change will have an outlet)

It really isn't for the taxpayer to ultimately provide for your drink/eats is it? Fine if it's commercially viable to provide it (and the Pulmans wouldn't continue with much of a loss, and I don't think they'd launch additional ones if there wasn't at least a chance of breaking even at least), but not to ask the taxpayer - I'd rather the money went into the (bottomless, but that's another discussion) NHS

[TaplowGreen]

Then allow enough changing time (anywhere you change will have an outlet)

It really isn't for the taxpayer to ultimately provide for your drink/eats is it? Fine if it's commercially viable to provide it (and the Pulmans wouldn't continue with much of a loss, and I don't think they'd launch additional ones if there wasn't at least a chance of breaking even at least), but not to ask the taxpayer - I'd rather the money went into the (bottomless, but that's another discussion) NHS

...........and that's precisely the point, it isn't commercially viable, there isn't sufficient demand, it can only exist with a subsidy which inevitably results in higher costs/fares for the vast majority of customers......unprofitable routes can be cross subsidised by those which are extremely profitable as well as being justified by the public interest argument, which does not exist for ^6 cheeseburgers.......it's got nothing to do with perceived antipathy towards staff or unions, its just basic economics...