First Great Western to Give up Franchise?

[whole diary]

[Zoe]

Besides, the actual decision has to be made blind - so they'll have to find a way of removing the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) from the bid process, else FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s bid would be identifiable to those making the decision, surely?

When the new Thames franchise was tendered for back in 2003, one company (Go-Ahead) was offering to keep things the same and the other (First) was offering improvements by using HSTs on Oxford services.  It would have been very obvious to the person making the decision which company they were selecting even if there were no company names on the bids.

Totally illegal under EU^» (European Union - about) procurement rules I reckon...

There would have to be a competitive tender yes but a decision could be made to award the franchise to the company with extra stock.

[Electric train]

Other companies could decline to bid the tender because one of the tenders owns stocked used on the routes to be tendered, which could make the tendering process a bit interesting,

[woody]

And lets not forget the bigger franchise picture.First have prefered bidder status on the new West Coast franchise as well,the winner of which will be announced later this year and an interest in bidding for a new East coast franchise.Great Western may well turn out to be an irellevance for First if they win the West Coast franchise.First are simply casting their corporate net as wide as possible to make sure they catch something worthwhile.

[Zoe]

And lets not forget the bigger franchise picture.First have prefered bidder status on the new West Coast franchise as well

No they do not, they have been invited to tender for the franchise along with Virgin and others.

[devon_metro]

Would the dft want to risk a shortage of stock on Greater Western due to this?  Much easier just to give the new franchise to First.

Totally illegal under EU^» (European Union - about) procurement rules I reckon...

Paul

Perhaps so, but one of the selling points of First winning the franchise would be their offer to provide an additional 6 (?) trainsets compared to other bids.

[ChrisB]

As First own the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) though they will be in pole position to retain the franchise and so to them it will just be like a new deal.  I can't see the dft risking another company not having use of the HSTs.  Had First waited until 2016 and the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) they wouldn't have had this trump card to play.

That is a very, very valid point and one I'm sure not lost on FirstGroup!

THe DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) could get around that by delaying the re-franchise to the expected end date & asking FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to continue on a management-only basis. THat would thwart them - and if they wanted to be sure of favourable consideration at re-tendering, would hasve to consent....

[JayMac]

And I don't see the Fist Group owned HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) as such a trump card. Certainly not one First should play against the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). That sort of thing is unlikely to go down well with the manadarins of Marsham St.

5 x Class 180s will fill the gap in the rolling stock provision quite nicely for a new franchise to run to the same SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment, or possibly SLC Rail (a consultancy firm), depending on context) as the current one.

If First do decide to over-egg their bid based on the HSTs they own, they could be left high and dry with rolling stock that nobody needs.

[Tim]

And I don't see the Fist Group owned HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) as such a trump card. Certainly not one First should play against the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). That sort of thing is unlikely to go down well with the manadarins of Marsham St.

5 x Class 180s will fill the gap in the rolling stock provision quite nicely for a new franchise to run to the same SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment, or possibly SLC Rail (a consultancy firm), depending on context) as the current one.

If First do decide to over-egg their bid based on the HSTs they own, they could be left high and dry with rolling stock that nobody needs.

Quite,  With 180's and electrification round the corner this is not much of a trump card.

[ChrisB]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

A commuter group is seeking assurances that First Great Western services will not suffer as the firm bids for a new franchise from the government.

The rail group has decided not to take up an option to extend its franchise by three years beyond March 2013 in the hope of securing a longer deal.

Anthony Smith, Passenger Watch's [chief executive, said he wanted the company to ensure "standards will not slip".

First said it would continue to provide a "high quality" service.

"We at First Great Western look forward to drawing on our unrivalled expertise and experience to bid for the new Greater Western franchise and continue to develop key projects across our network," the firm said.

But Mr Smith said he wanted whoever eventually runs the franchise to focus on "better value for money, punctual trains and more frequent services".

"Also important are the inclusion of passenger satisfaction targets and repercussions if the train company lets passengers down," he said.

First Great Western runs train services between London, the west of England, south Wales and parts of the Midlands.

First Group was awarded the franchise to run services in the Great Western area in December 2005.

The firm said it wanted instead to try to negotiate a longer-term deal
But the company has not always been popular among commuters.

In 2008, the company faced a fare strike by some passengers over claims of high prices, overcrowding and unreliable trains.

A First Group spokesperson admitted then that the firm had failed to deliver an "appropriate level of service".

The Office of Rail Regulation added that punctuality on the line had been "poor for far too long".

At the time, 83% of First Great Western's services were arriving on time compared to a national average of 91%.

The firm's high-speed service is currently on time 88.1% of the time although some of its local services, such as in Devon and Cornwall, are on time in more than 95% of journeys.

Passenger Watch???!!!

[Zoe]

And I don't see the Fist Group owned HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) as such a trump card. Certainly not one First should play against the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). That sort of thing is unlikely to go down well with the manadarins of Marsham St.

5 x Class 180s will fill the gap in the rolling stock provision quite nicely for a new franchise to run to the same SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment, or possibly SLC Rail (a consultancy firm), depending on context) as the current one.

If First do decide to over-egg their bid based on the HSTs they own, they could be left high and dry with rolling stock that nobody needs.

Five 180s will not offer the same capacity as five HSTs.  I doubt a reduction in capacity would be popular in the new franchise.

[JayMac]

Suitably timetabled on the Cotswold Line and in the stead of current Oxford fasts could potentially increase capacity, freeing up HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) sets and maybe even release one or two turbos for use elsewhere.

[JayMac]

Railway Eye's take on this issue:

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2011/05/first-instructs-daft-to-assume-position.html

 

[willc]

Suitably timetabled on the Cotswold Line and in the stead of current Oxford fasts could potentially increase capacity, freeing up HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) sets and maybe even release one or two turbos for use elsewhere.

I'm really not sure where this idea that 180s could replace HSTs on the Cotswold Line comes from, even though it seems to pop up all over forums whenever 180s are discussed.

Just look at the timetable after two years of weeding-out of off-peak and weekend HSTs. With the possible exception of the first out and back weekday off-peak trip to Hereford (the second forms the 17.37 departure from Oxford to London on its return leg), pretty much every train that is now HST-worked needs the capacity they offer, or, in the case of the westbound evening trains, is getting a set into place for the next morning. If 180s return, they would allow Turbos to be moved off assorted Oxford fasts and the contra-peak and off-peak Cotswold trains to help out in the Thames Valley.

As for the First-owned HSTs, if there was the slightest hint they were being used as a carrot/bargaining chip, every other franchise bidder would be off to see their learned friends like a shot. And what on earth would First do with these trains if it did go off with them in a huff? Surely would make more sense to lease them to a new incumbent, should First lose out, and get a nice fat lease fee for three years or so.

Railway Eye link is not working. I'd just go to http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/ and scroll down

[JayMac]

Link fine my end. 

[ChrisB]

And mine.