TV Alert

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Points West 6.30pm BBC1 main story about overcrowding on West services.

UPDATE:
For those unable to see this report, I have done a summary which can be found in the Cardiff-Portsmouth section of the board:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=938.0

[simonw]

Is FGW^▸ (First Great Western) being Economical with the truth?

No carriages out there, surely not? I thought that FGW had just released some Adelante trains. A couple of these could be used at peak time on this route.

Local routes are not profitable, surely not? Other networks can provide very good non main line services, ie  SWT^▸ (South West Trains), Transpenine, Northern, etc. Why can't FGW?

The simple answer is that FGW aim is to maximise profits for minimum cost. It is also interesting that Tom Harris was unwilling to comment directly, other than release a vague statement that the government plans to improve reliability. This didn't even address the issue of overcrowding!

[grahame]

Is FGW^▸ (First Great Western) being Economical with the truth?

No carriages out there, surely not? I thought that FGW had just released some Adelante trains. A couple of these could be used at peak time on this route.

Facts presented are - in any business - the ones that show the case to the best. There are no carriages suitable for the routes that are unspoken for.   The last four 153 units from Eastleighare to go to the East Midlands.  The 180 units (Adelante) are unsuitable because they would cost an extra 15 million pounds a year to run (that's enough units for them to run Cardiff / Portsmouth) according to a First Regional Manager.

Local routes are not profitable, surely not? Other networks can provide very good non main line services, ie  SWT^▸ (South West Trains), Transpenine, Northern, etc. Why can't FGW?

There IS an issue with providing a carriage which is really only full for the 12 minutes from Keynsham to Bristol in the morning peak and the 6 minutes back in the evening. And there's an issue with the distortion caused by franchise payment / premium.  Some franchises are subsidised by up to 42p per passenger mile (that high figure may be one that's now expired, but others are half of that) but on FGW over the whole period, there is no subsidy.

The trick - and this is what Wessex were said to be masterful at (with much genuine thanks to Andrew Griffiths in Deveon and Cornwall) - was to keep trains running all day so that they can be fully utilised not for 18 minutes but nearly 18 hours.  The cost of hiring a Pacer (i.e. 142) for a year is 300,000 pounds whereas they originally cost (capital) 100,000 to build and that is where the economics get hit. 

Comparing to the main line - take a look at the pence taken per 10 minutes per seat at regular, standard class fares.   A 125 will take over 9 pounds (55p / mile, 100 m.p.h) whereas a 158 will take around 2.50 (20p / mile, 75 mph).  And when you look at cost to operate, the 2 car 158 is one staff member per coach but the 125 is one staff member every 2 or 3 coaches.

I'm sounding a bit like "in defence of ...." I know, but it's neither totally bad nor totally good.

The simple answer is that FGW aim is to maximise profits for minimum cost.

Yes. Almost. I strongly suspect that they would invest to grow the business further given an opportunity with an excellent or better rate of return and a mimimal extra risk Indeed, we should be seeing that from next May if the Severn Beach extra services are provided. The return and risk are in this case provided by Bristol's council, but it's still an expansion business case.

It is also interesting that Tom Harris was unwilling to comment directly, other than release a vague statement that the government plans to improve reliability. This didn't even address the issue of overcrowding!

[mada]

And there's an issue with the distortion caused by franchise payment / premium.  Some franchises are subsidised by up to 42p per passenger mile (that high figure may be one that's now expired, but others are half of that) but on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) over the whole period, there is no subsidy.

I wonder if the subsidised franchises happen to be in Labour marginal areas. 

[Lee]

The cost of hiring a Pacer (i.e. 142) for a year is 300,000 pounds whereas they originally cost (capital) 100,000 to build and that is where the economics get hit. 

I strongly suspect that they would invest to grow the business further given an opportunity with an excellent or better rate of return and a mimimal extra risk Indeed, we should be seeing that from next May if the Severn Beach extra services are provided. The return and risk are in this case provided by Bristol's council, but it's still an expansion business case.

Here are the yearly costs of a Class 143 Pacer (figures supplied by Andrew Griffiths and used as a basis of negotiations with Bristol City Council) :

Lease cost of unit - ^140000

Maintenence of unit - ^140000

Fuel for unit - ^180000

Staff (drivers and conductors) - ^420000 for 2 crews plus reliefs.

Station and track access charges - ^40000

Total yearly costs - ^920000

A seperate calculation would be made to determine the likely revenue that the extra unit would generate , and the difference between this figure and the total yearly costs figure would be the "funding gap" or amount of subsidy required. This can be reduced if the subsidy provider is willing to share the revenue risk with First Great Western. Such an approach can also lead to a profit sharing arrangement if applicable.

[martyjon]

Grahame.

What you don't seem to have grasped is that for over half of the time outside of the peak hours the Portsmouth - Cardiff services are always running well loaded.

I personally have travelled from Bristol to Portsmouth and the only seats available have been the tip-up seats by the carriage entry doors on leaving Bristol, I occupied one all the way to Salisbury on a trip one day and then moved into the carriage proper when seats there became available.

In a previous post on this forum it was quoted that there are diagrammed 2 158's for peak hour strengthening on the Cardiff - Portsmouth services.

Where do you put those 2 158's as the peak hours occur at Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Trowbridge, Warminster, Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth and elsewhere that I omitted all at the same time. Do you attach an extra 158 to a service at Westbury so that it provides the extra passenger accomodation from Salisbury to Romsey, Southampton and Portsmouth and return to Westbury in the peak hour and then the second 158 to a service in the other direction at Westbury to provide the extra passenger accomodation from Bath to Bristol, from Bristol to Newport and Cardiff, from Newport to Cardiff. What about the Portsmouth and Southampton passengers at the beginning of the peaks, likewise passengers from Cardiff and Newport to Bristol, passengers from Bristol to Bath, from Bath to Trowbridge and Westbury.

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) FGW^▸ (First Great Western) need at least 6 158s to strenghthen peak hour services on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, 2 for services to Portsmouth added at Westbury, 1 for services to Bristol from Trowbridge and Bath added at Westbury, 1 for services to Cardiff and Newport added at Bristol, 1 for services to Bath and stations to Portsmouth added at Bristol and the final 1 for services from Cardiff added at Cardiff.

You can't tell the passengers who are moaning about overcrowded services that they should wait for the next service because it is formed of 2 158's and its specially strengthen to 4 carriages to carry the extra influx of passengers travelling to or from work in the morning and evening peak hours.

How about if I told you to tell Your Melksham residents to get up earlier in the mornings to use the 1 pre-dawn service to Swindon, take a 3 hour lunch break and then work later in the evenings to catch the 1 after-dusk service back to Melksham. If that happened I bet both you and I would get quite alot of 2-fingered salutes.

My attitude would be to hell with the shareholders, lets get the company back onto a good relationship with our customers and if it costs us money so be it. If it loses us investors so be it, let them find somewhere else for them to put their money.

I remember a time when BA^» (British Airways - about) had a problem with some aircraft and all the aircraft of the type needed urgent inspections to establish if the same defect had proliferated to others of the type. Rather than cancel flights BA utilised all available aircraft, 747's on the London - Manchester, London - Glasgow, London - Edinburgh shuttles, Concordes on the London - Newcastle shuttles. That couldnt have been cost efective but it kept the passengers happy rather than the passengers turning up at the airport and being given a BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) single ticket to wherever and told board that coach there for Euston or Kings Cross, your going by train today, it'll take 6 hours more because the plane is on a special examination and is not available.

Keep your customers happy and they'll return, treat them like animals and they won't.

What if FGW DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) lease the 180's for the Cardiff - Portsmouth route and took the extra out of the premium they are due to pay the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). What are the DfT going to do about it, put them into adminstration.

I have over my the years done things which I know were against policy but at the end of the day when the higher ups have found out my attitude has been to look them in the eye and ask them what they are going to do about it, the customer is happy with what I did for him, are you now going to take that away from him because that what he requested in the first place, not what you decided that he needed. Its called Putting the Customer First. In the end those same mangement were coming to me and asking me what I could do for their customers and I told them to tell their customers to come to me and I would discuss it with the customer direct. It was like the old story of the troops in battle, a message was recieved back at base from the front line, send 3 and 4 pence we're going to a dance, when in fact the message sent from the front line was send reinforcements, we're going to advance.

[Lee]

What if FGW^▸ (First Great Western) DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) lease the 180's for the Cardiff - Portsmouth route and took the extra out of the premium they are due to pay the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). What are the DfT going to do about it, put them into adminstration.

The DfT could refuse to underwrite the lease , as they are required to do. The prospect of losing those premium payments would make them very likely to say no.

[Lee]

In a previous post on this forum it was quoted that there are diagrammed 2 158's for peak hour strengthening on the Cardiff - Portsmouth services.

Where do you put those 2 158's as the peak hours occur at Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Trowbridge, Warminster, Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth and elsewhere that I omitted all at the same time. Do you attach an extra 158 to a service at Westbury so that it provides the extra passenger accomodation from Salisbury to Romsey, Southampton and Portsmouth and return to Westbury in the peak hour and then the second 158 to a service in the other direction at Westbury to provide the extra passenger accomodation from Bath to Bristol, from Bristol to Newport and Cardiff, from Newport to Cardiff. What about the Portsmouth and Southampton passengers at the beginning of the peaks, likewise passengers from Cardiff and Newport to Bristol, passengers from Bristol to Bath, from Bath to Trowbridge and Westbury.

Here is a list of services from the "Cross - Bristol" area that are due to be strengthened from December 2007. A couple of caveats :

1) The list is taken from the original draft December 2007 Timetable. As a result , the timings shown may differ slightly from the "final" version.

2) As martyjon rightly points out , sometimes extra carriages are added or taken off en route. Where this is due to be the case , I have noted it in brackets.

SERVICES DUE TO BE STRENGTHENED WITH A 2 - COACH CLASS 158 UNIT

0640 Frome - Cardiff Central (detached at Bristol Temple Meads.)
0723 Warminster - Great Malvern (attached at Westbury , detached at Bristol Temple Meads.)
0600 Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff Central (detached at Bristol Temple Meads.)
1222 Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff Central (attached at Bristol Temple Meads.)
1622 Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff Central.
2038 Westbury - Bristol Temple Meads.
0625 Westbury - Frome.
0545 Bristol Temple Meads - Weymouth / Portsmouth Harbour (split at Westbury.)
1230 Cardiff Central - Portsmouth Harbour (attached at Bristol Temple Meads.)
1630 Cardiff Central - Portsmouth Harbour.

SERVICES DUE TO BE STRENGTHENED WITH A 1 - COACH CLASS 153 UNIT

0540 Weymouth - Bristol Parkway (attached at Westbury.)
1704 Bristol Temple Meads - Bristol Parkway.
2130 Southampton Central - Bristol Temple Meads (Class 150 / 153 combo from Westbury onwards.)
0845 Bristol Parkway - Westbury (detached at Bristol Temple Meads.)
1648 Bristol Parkway - Westbury (attached at Bristol Temple Meads.)
1748 Bristol Parkway - Westbury (attached at Bristol Temple Meads.)

SERVICES DUE TO BE OPERATED BY A 3 - COACH CLASS 158 UNIT

0554 Bristol Temple Meads - Cardiff Central.
1122 Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff Central.
1922 Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff Central.
0730 Cardiff Central - Portsmouth Harbour.
1530 Cardiff Central - Portsmouth Harbour.

Finally , although I made the point that I did about the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and the Class 180 leases , I do actually agree with martyjon that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should be allowed to deploy them. See quote below :

He wasn't asked (and didn't offer comment as far as I could tell) what will be happeneing to the 200andsummat seat trains when replaced by the 500andsummat seat ones. I had a dream that they could in turn replace the 150orso seat trains that are full to bursting point on Cardiff - Portsmouth, and then those 150orso seat trains could strengthen other services, provide appropriate extras and help Andrew deliver that improved reliabiity by having just 1% more slack in the system. I expect there's no substance in my dream - are the Adalentes off to some other pastures in the North of England, by any chance?

Here is a link to the probable forthcoming rolling stock deployment , based on the unit number codes used by FGW in the Draft December 2007 Timetable.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=660.msg2347#msg2347

How about this instead?

Class 143/1 - Bristol - Avonmouth / Severn Beach services.
Class 143/2 - Bristol - Avonmouth / Severn Beach services.
Class 143/3 - Weston - Bristol Parkway services.
Class 143/4 - Southampton - Cheltenham group services.
Class 143/5 - Peak Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 143/6 - Bristol - Avonmouth / Severn Beach services.
Class 143/7 - Weston - Bristol Parkway services.

Class 150/1 - Southampton - Cheltenham group services.
Class 150/2 - Southampton - Cheltenham group services.
Class 150/3 - Peak Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 150/13 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 150/14 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.

Class 153/8 - Southampton - Cheltenham group services.
Class 153/9 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.

Class 158/1 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/2 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/4 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/5 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/6 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/7 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/9 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/10 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/11 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/12 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/13 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/14 - Westbury - Gloucester group services.
Class 158/15 - Taunton - Cardiff services.
Class 158/16 - Taunton - Cardiff services.
Class 158/17 - Taunton - Cardiff services.
Class 158/18 - Taunton - Cardiff services.
Class 158/19 - Marked as "not used."
Class 158/20 - Taunton - Cardiff services.
 
Class 158 (3 - coach) - Westbury - Gloucester group services.

Class 180/1 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
Class 180/2 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
Class 180/3 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
Class 180/4 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
Class 180/5 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
Class 180/6 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
Class 180/7 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.
Class 180/8 - Portsmouth - Cardiff services.

This could provide the following benefits :

SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS

- 2 - hourly off - peak (rising to near - hourly peak) Westbury - Swindon services , with early morning , evening and optimally - timed peak trains restored.

- Half - hourly Bristol - Severn Beach services.

- Half - hourly Bedminster , Parson Street , Severn Tunnel Junction and Weston Milton services.

- Same number of Dilton Marsh services as now , but pattern revised to more closely match traffic flows , especially at the peaks.

- Through services between Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge - Warminster , Dilton Marsh and Westbury retained , along with easier northbound connections.

ROLIING STOCK PROVISION IMPROVEMENTS

- 5 - coach (including first class) Portsmouth - Cardiff services.

- 4 - coach Westbury - Gloucester group services.

- All Taunton - Cardiff services operated by Class 158 units.

[BandHcommuter]

What if FGW^▸ (First Great Western) DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) lease the 180's for the Cardiff - Portsmouth route and took the extra out of the premium they are due to pay the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). What are the DfT going to do about it, put them into adminstration.

Presumably the franchise subsidy/premium payment schedule is detailed in the franchise agreement between FGW and the DfT. I would imagine that the agreement also describes the remedies available to the DfT if a franchisee fails to meet their payment obligations.

[Lee]

What if FGW^▸ (First Great Western) DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) lease the 180's for the Cardiff - Portsmouth route and took the extra out of the premium they are due to pay the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). What are the DfT going to do about it, put them into adminstration.

Presumably the franchise subsidy/premium payment schedule is detailed in the franchise agreement between FGW and the DfT. I would imagine that the agreement also describes the remedies available to the DfT if a franchisee fails to meet their payment obligations.

The franchise agreement can be found in the link below.
http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/First%20Greater%20Western%20Franchise%20Agreement.pdf

The franchise subsidy/premium payment schedule can be found in the following link.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/franchisepaymentprofilesa

[grahame]

Grahame.

What you don't seem to have grasped is that for over half of the time outside of the peak hours the Portsmouth - Cardiff services are always running well loaded.

No, I accept that. To some extent I am helping to place all the views here by giving the story as told to us by FGW^▸ (First Great Western), and I am also asking whether or not doubling up the train length would lead to an equivalent increase in revenue.  There's busy v uncomfortable v packed v runing people away, and there's few minutes v peak hour v sometimes v most of the time.

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) FGW need at least 6 158s to strenghthen peak hour services on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, 2 for services to Portsmouth added at Westbury, 1 for services to Bristol from Trowbridge and Bath added at Westbury, 1 for services to Cardiff and Newport added at Bristol, 1 for services to Bath and stations to Portsmouth added at Bristol and the final 1 for services from Cardiff added at Cardiff.

You can't tell the passengers who are moaning about overcrowded services that they should wait for the next service because it is formed of 2 158's and its specially strengthen to 4 carriages to carry the extra influx of passengers travelling to or from work in the morning and evening peak hours.

If the leasing costs of a unit were (say) around a half of what it cost to build per year, and there were plenty of units around, that would be a no-brainer.  But there units (I am told!) cost around 3 times their original price to rent per annum at the moment, and they are not exactly abundant.

How about if I told you to tell Your Melksham residents to get up earlier in the mornings to use the 1 pre-dawn service to Swindon, take a 3 hour lunch break and then work later in the evenings to catch the 1 after-dusk service back to Melksham. If that happened I bet both you and I would get quite alot of 2-fingered salutes.

I think that waiting for the next Victoria line tube because the current one is full isn't a big deal, but that waiting for the 19:35 because the 07:02 is full or cancelled is a nonstarter.  Two extremes.

My attitude would be to hell with the shareholders, lets get the company back onto a good relationship with our customers and if it costs us money so be it. If it loses us investors so be it, let them find somewhere else for them to put their money.

[snip]

Keep your customers happy and they'll return, treat them like animals and they won't.

Whilst you have a strong point, I have to point out that FGW have more customers that they need, or feel they need.  I remember a lecture by Alison Forster where she was telling us that for every existing customer, there are two more who are not unwilling to use the trains but simply haven't got round to doing so.  How you and I would run they business and how they do in this circumstance differs ...

[Lee]

I wonder if the subsidised franchises happen to be in Labour marginal areas. 

The Northern Rail and West Midlands franchises are heavily subsidised , and operate in areas key to Labour. On the other hand though , they also contain several loss - making services that require such subsidy.

What interests me more are specific cases of service improvements that either have been or are due to be implemented in areas important to Labour. Have a look at the example links below , and see if you think that they are / were politically motivated :

Ivybridge.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=295.msg796#msg796

Falmouth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/248.stm

Severn Beach.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/100.stm

I would point out that I actively campaign for both the Ivybridge and Severn Beach folks , and wouldnt begrudge any of the above their improved / soon to be improved services for one moment.

We actually looked further into this on the Save The Train forum , with some interesting results. I would describe the link below as tongue in cheek , but with a serious point.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=504.msg1474#msg1474

[devon_metro]

Has this report been found on Youtube yet?

[vacman]

One option may be to join/split Weymouth/Portsmouth trains Westbury, but, this would reduce the number of trains between Westbury and Bristol.

[Jim]

The problem is, xmas is coming, and CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains)-PMH Sat AM's is going to be a repeat of last year!