|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak ‘Just Spin’ Say Commuters (Read 3223 times)
|
|
Lee
|
Commuters buoyed by a promise of extra London-bound train services from Maidenhead and Twyford have branded the planned timetable changes misleading and inadequate (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/timetable_tweak_just_spin.html#moreMeanwhile , a meeting between MPs and First Great Western has failed to resolve a bitter dispute over train services in Oxfordshire and Berkshire (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/meeting_fails_to_end_rail_disp.htmlNo deal was agreed at the summit and there is now a call for the company to face penalty fines over its service. "I don't think First Great Western have really taken on board the level of unhappiness out there." - MP Richard Benyon Ed Vaizey , Conservative MP for Wantage and Didcot said the meeting had been "a complete waste of time". Martin Salter , MP for Reading West , claimed people were leaving the railways in droves because of "chronic overcrowding". "We can't hold out any realistic prospect of improvement for our constituents until April or May at the earliest." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
A BBC news article on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/6253949.stmI also heard Andrew Griffiths again last night this time on BBC Radio Berkshire. I missed some of it but managed to catch the end and heard him saying that all franchise bidders would have been subject to the same rolling stock restrictions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve35
|
I also heard Andrew Griffiths again last night this time on BBC Radio Berkshire. I missed some of it but managed to catch the end and heard him saying that all franchise bidders would have been subject to the same rolling stock restrictions.
Sounds about right (but see below). The DfT underwrites the leases between the train operator (FGW in this case) and the Rolling Stock Leasing Company that owns the trains. If the DfT won't underwrite a lease for a unit then FGW (or any other train operator for that matter) can't lease the unit. End of story. So the DfT effectively determines how many units FGW can use to run the timetable. Here's a quote from an insider "The DfT will say publicly that FGW can run extra services if they are commercially viable. FGW can specify what is deemed commercially viable, however the DfT can specify what *it* deems commercially viable when underwriting the lease agreements. It can therefore covertly limit services by refusing to act as a guarantor to the extra stock leases. No lease company will sign an agreement without such a guarantee." So even if FGW wants to run extra services and believes them to be commercially viable the DfT can disagree and refuse to underwrite the lease. Another point: Five of the HST's that provide the Intercity services to Paddington are owned outright by First rather than being leased. First bought them off a leasing company a couple of years ago when there were many HST's in store after being replaced by Virgin Voyagers on Cross-Country services. It looked at that time as if there wasn't any demand for the stored HST's and they might have to be scrapped so the leasing company decided to sell them instead. So if First lost the FGW franchise they could well take these 5 HST's with them to use on one of their other franchises, leaving the new operator of the Great Western franchise with a problem - as these days there are no spare HST's that they could lease. So let's just think things through. Suppose the current public outrage causes the DfT to strip FGW of the franchise. FGW might decide to sell the HST's to the replacement operator or it might take the HST's with it. If it chose the latter option the new operator would be 5 trains short. Even if 5 replacement HST-size trains could be found from somewhere they would still need leasing. This would be an extra cost for the new operator that FGW didn't have. If the DfT played tough and said "no more money is available" you might end up with extra service cuts in the Wessex part of the business to pay for leasing the 5 replacement trains. Alternatively there might just have to be cutbacks on the Paddington services. So anyone who wants FGW to lose the franchise should think carefully about the possible consequences. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. (And more). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
There is a danger that if FGW are stripped of their franchise , then the DfT could step in to "impose order" , with all the unwelcome consequences that could bring.
I do think that now would be a good time for a FGW "gesture of faith / commitment" though.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tonya
|
Steve,
what you seem to be saying is better the devil you know.......I am not sure I agree with this. The devil we know is one where we no longer have a train service we can rely on at all. It's gone far beyond just overcrowded trains. They may arrive or not, and you may be able to get on them or not. Hence the commuter anger and support for MTLS and the forthcoming fare strike. We understand that government policy is at the heart of all this, however it is FGW who signed up to the franchise and to whom we pay our fares. If the franchise is taken away from FGW, presumably it would be in the DFT's interests to upgrade the minimum service specifications or they would likely have the same uproar again if the subsequent service provider failed in the same way for the same reasons. By upping the minimum specifications allowing the sunsequent franchisee to succeed the govt could then blame FGW rather than themselves for the fgw franchise failure. Another failure would make it increasinglky hard for the dft to say it's nothing to do with them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
From Steve35 So even if FGW wants to run extra services and believes them to be commercially viable the DfT can disagree and refuse to underwrite the lease. I agree with you at this point. I'm interested to know, though, whether the biders had more say in the number of trains they would have needed at the tending stage - with company "x" saying 60, company "y" 62 and company "z" 70 - encouraing a dutch auction. Taking that scenario, you would have First as being, yes, very much under the Government's thumb but there, to a very great extent, at their own making. Is that the way it worked? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Steve,
what you seem to be saying is better the devil you know.......I am not sure I agree with this. The devil we know is one where we no longer have a train service we can rely on at all. It's gone far beyond just overcrowded trains. They may arrive or not, and you may be able to get on them or not. Hence the commuter anger and support for MTLS and the forthcoming fare strike. We understand that government policy is at the heart of all this, however it is FGW who signed up to the franchise and to whom we pay our fares. If the franchise is taken away from FGW, presumably it would be in the DFT's interests to upgrade the minimum service specifications or they would likely have the same uproar again if the subsequent service provider failed in the same way for the same reasons. By upping the minimum specifications allowing the sunsequent franchisee to succeed the govt could then blame FGW rather than themselves for the fgw franchise failure. Another failure would make it increasinglky hard for the dft to say it's nothing to do with them. It really depends on how serious both the DfT and FGW are about their future commitment to rail services in our area. Three things give me cause for doubt regarding this : 1) The DfT & First have authorised millions to be spent on parallel "showcase" bus routes on both the Bath - Bristol and Yate - Weston - super - Mare corridors (links below.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4747277.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5157322.stm2) Here is a link to a diagram showing journey times between Wiltshire towns and Bath by train and by bus. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=588.msg1757#msg1757Source quote : "I used this in the Wiltshire Structure Plan Examination in Public in 2004 or 5. The panel came out against government office (GOSW) who tried recommended to those gathered the idea of converting local rail to bus" 3) What is referrred to below was not exactly the "gesture of faith / commitment" I was after from FGW. To - Customer services ... The 06:44 from Melksham to Westbury is cancelled yet again this morning. I also understand that you are adding extra sets to trains such as the 06:47 Frome to Bristol. 1. Are you robbing Peter to pay Paul - i.e. withdrawing the train completely from the Swindon line so that you can make the journey more comfortable for passengers on other services? 2. At what point do you expect to be able to offer a reliable service on the Westbury to Swindon route? End quoteNo, I do NOT bedrudge extra stock on trains such as the one up from Frome, but I don't thinks it's acceptable for Melksham to loose its servcei to strengthen others. Sorry - the next train after 06:44 is 19:08 .... not practical for us to wait for the next one  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve35
|
From Steve35 So even if FGW wants to run extra services and believes them to be commercially viable the DfT can disagree and refuse to underwrite the lease. I agree with you at this point. I'm interested to know, though, whether the biders had more say in the number of trains they would have needed at the tending stage - with company "x" saying 60, company "y" 62 and company "z" 70 - encouraing a dutch auction. Taking that scenario, you would have First as being, yes, very much under the Government's thumb but there, to a very great extent, at their own making. Is that the way it worked? Sadly I don't know the ins and outs of it - I suspect that information is protected by 'commercial confidentiality'. If the bidding was as you describe with company "x" saying 60, company "y" 62 etc then there would be pressure to lease the minimum number of units possible as every extra leased unit would mean having to offer the DfT less premium - which would reduce the chances of winning the franchise. In effect it would be up to the bidders to estimate how reliable they thought the units were going to be - if you think 90% of the fleet can be consistently in traffic then you need a smaller fleet than if availability was only going to be 50%. I see in the Jacobs "Outline Business Case" document (page 17) that Jacobs assumed a fleet availability of 84% for the ex-Wessex units. If the DfT specified the timetable and the exact number of units needed to run it the bids from all the bidders would probably be rather similar since two of the biggest costs for a TOC (track access charges and train leases) would effectively be set in stone. If you were the DfT and wanted to get the cost of leasing units down would you: a) specify a low number of units (or a maximum amount of money to be spent leasing units) in the ITT for the franchise so all bidders are forced to have a low number of units; or b) let the bidders decide how many units they want and hope that pressure to win the franchise results in the bidders 'signing themselves up' to a low number of units - which if you're lucky might be lower than the number you thought of for option a); or c) let the bidders decide how many units they want subject to a maximum limit on the number of units or cost of leasing the units. I honestly don't know. I do believe the TOC's have the freedom to try negotiate favourable deals when leasing units. I've seen forum posts that say FGW managed to get a 'lease one get one free' deal on some of their units from Porterbrook. To some extent I think we're talking about a side issue. The fundamental problem is that availability is nowhere near 84% and yet spare 153's are sitting in a siding at Eastleigh. This may be because FGW doesn't want to lease them because it would jeopordise it's premium payments to the DfT; or it may be because the DfT won't allow FGW to lease them... because it would jeopordise the premium payments. Whatever the reason we can see that the premium payments are obviously more important that providing the passengers with a decent service. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve35
|
Steve,
what you seem to be saying is better the devil you know.......I am not sure I agree with this. The devil we know is one where we no longer have a train service we can rely on at all. It's gone far beyond just overcrowded trains. They may arrive or not, and you may be able to get on them or not. Hence the commuter anger and support for MTLS and the forthcoming fare strike. We understand that government policy is at the heart of all this, however it is FGW who signed up to the franchise and to whom we pay our fares. If the franchise is taken away from FGW, presumably it would be in the DFT's interests to upgrade the minimum service specifications or they would likely have the same uproar again if the subsequent service provider failed in the same way for the same reasons. By upping the minimum specifications allowing the sunsequent franchisee to succeed the govt could then blame FGW rather than themselves for the fgw franchise failure. Another failure would make it increasinglky hard for the dft to say it's nothing to do with them.
Yes, you make a good point. What I was trying to make everyone aware of is that FGW actually own 5 of the HST trains and could take them with them if they lost the franchise. Which would leave the new operator with the problem of where to get 5 replacement trains from. There aren't any spare HST's at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
This is indeed the case. For a good overview of First Great Western , check out this Wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Western"First Great Western use their large fleet of 43 HST sets to operate most long distance services from Paddington to destinations such as Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Cheltenham, Plymouth and Penzance. Not all of the fleet is leased, with some sets being bought outright by First." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
 |
