Just a few thoughts...

I'm not as familiar with the services in the Bristol/Bath area, so I cannot comment. However there are many organisations all over the FGW area that have grievances; - Oxford commuters have the OxRail Action Group, and are fed up with the morning services; The Cotswold Line Promotion Group have a particular grievance over the 0534 from Great Malvern to Paddington now being operated by a Turbo when it started off in December being operated by an Adelante (In spite of the DfT's instruction that with slight exception, all services on the Cotswold Line be formed of 125mph stock); it just goes on, and these organisatons will now doubt have their say with Alison in due course.

A particular grievance aired by the CLPG in their last newsletter, was that FGW was ignoring consultation, so maybe you could ask the question "Will FGW listen more to all the pressure groups that have sprung up, who are, after all, attempting to work WITH FGW to improve their service?".

As FGW have completely lost the respect of the vast majority of the travelling public in the West of England, what action are they going to do earn the respect of their customers?

Does FGW have any respect for its customers, as the service that was provided from December would appear that they have no interest in them, and a lot of contempt for them?

Why have they trimmed their capacity so much so that the 0710 from Bristol Temple Meads to Paddington appears to get cancelled more often than it runs? (If it is a "spare" set as has been written elsewhere, why is it in the timetable anyway?)

Why were they so totally ill-prepared for the December timetable when they had been operating many services in the area for a long time before?

In hindsight, what would FGW have done to improve the December timetable? How aware was AF of the cutbacks being implemented in the December timetable; did she have much say in the new timetables?

When are they going to do the honourable thing, hold their hands up, admit they've failed, and hand back their franchise, (before it is withdrawn from them?)

It seems that the only hope that FGW is clinging on to for the future is the introduction of the new HST interiors, although they have received a mixed reaction from the rail media, who criticise the new lay-outs for not being "family friendly" as there are very few tables.

Anyway, good luck with your meeting

There are a number of points made by Mr Bray that require clarification.

Oxford services are generally the same as they have been for the past two years, except that some timings have changed (people don't seem to like any change, but things cannot remain the same forever!). From my own observations, there is plenty of capacity available if people are prepared to use all the trains provided in the timetable. A 5-coach Adelante has a similar seating capacity to a 3-car Turbo and several of the latter leave Oxford almost empty whilst people try and cram into the Adelantes! People need to accept that for a 10 minute extra jouney time they can have a seat for the duration of their journey.  The biggest gripe now is the quality of the information when things go wrong as the CIS doesn't work very well.

Despite what the CLPG might have people believe, there is NO requirement on FGW to operate Cotswold Line services with 125mph rolling stock. It is not a condition in the franhcise agreement, apart from the two HSTs that have for many years operated in the am and pm peak between Hereford and London. These are used due to the high loadings on these trains. Line speed is no greater than 90mph on some sections so having 125mph trains on the line itself makes no difference.

The 0534 from Great Malvern had always been worked by a 3-car Turbo. In fact until FGW Link came into being in 2004, all services with the exception of the two peak trains from Hereford were formed by Turbo trains. FGW has transformed travel on the Costwold Line in the past 3 years by introducing Adelantes on all but the two peak HST's services, and one 'local' stopping train.

In December an Adelante was put onto the 0534 train, but a review carried out by FGW in January to assess the utilisation of rolling stock and operation of the timetable meant it was moved onto an additional 0733 ttrain from Oxford. This train was needed to meet the needs of commuters from Oxford and the Thames Valley.  The 0534 reverted to a Turbo that had been used before December, so no great difference in capacity - as far as Oxford at least!

Whilst CLPG says FGW is ignoring consultation, it fails to mention that the existing timetable on the line is based on its own ideas and was introduced by FGW - so they certainly were lsitening to the group.

Consultation is about collecting views from a wide number of different users and organisation. It is not about getting everything you ask for all the time, as there has to be some compromise and I believe FGW has had to juggle many competing demands from users across their area. Sadly, CLPG interpet this as being ignored which I do not think is the case.  For example, most recently CLPG has been highly critical of changes to services at Newbury because they were strengthened with an extra Adelante that CLPG felt should be used on its line. They fail to acknowledge that commuters from Kennet & Avon have been forced to stand and have been unable to get on board full trains since December and FGW has reacted to this problem by changing the use of rolling stock to best meet demand.

The 0710 HST from Bristol to Paddington is a spare set. The train works to the capital in the morning and stays at Old Oak Common depot all day before heading back west in the afternoon rush hour. It makes sense for this to operate in service to provide an extra train from Bristol in the morning (from mid-morning onwards most of the Bristol service is resourced by HSTs arriving from London). Running it in service (when a set is available) takes away the need for an empty out of service trains to use a scarce path all the way to London.

What people have slowly begun to forget is that FGW did not specify the structure of the timetable. DfT issued a very detailed specification, including the full timetable that had to be provided between London-Bristol/Oxford. Whilst DfT says that it sets the minimum service (which may be true), it also controls the rolling stock available in the franchised fleets.  Even of FGW wanted to run more trains it would have to do so with the same amount of rolling stock, unless 1) DfT agreed to pay for more trains, or 2) the business case was so strong as to make it viable for FGW to lease extra trains that could be paid for by the extra revenue. Very few services actually make enough money for them to do this, as an HST costs around £1.2 million each year to lease, let alone fuel and staff etc.

The franchise is focused on increasing travel demand and getting more bums on seats so better dialogue between users and FGW management is always a good thing!

Getting the stock in the right order would be a good start.

0703 off Trowbridge this morning ran with 1 x 158 and 1 x 143 on the rear, this would normally divide at BTM with the rear portion making the Cardiff train and the rest going on to WSM, not this morning. Initial announcement WAS for the 143 to make up the Cardiff train, but then they changed their minds,     and amid much guessing as to whether we would be going to WSM this morning everyone trooped off to the 158 and waited while the WSM portion trundled out of the way so we could leave, 15 min late. 

Another one is getting the departure screens to have the correct/some information.

Last nights 1841 Filton - WSM didn't appear either on the screen or at the station, enquiring at BTM help desk I was informed that it had been started from BTM, fat lot of good to the people at Filton who hadn't a clue what was going on.

It can also be quite amusing seeing that the cancelled 08something still showing on the board at 1800 that evening.

 

Is that Salisbury station by any chance?  Reminds me of when I was passing a desiro in the sidings at Basingstoke which had 'B*L****S' in its destination panel.  Presumably a disgruntled member of satff was having a laugh.