Great Western Coffee Shop

Just found this story from the Western Daily Press. Though a little dated (March 31) it does give some insight into the December move up North of 12 158's:

http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145786&command=displayContent&sourceNode=221018&contentPK=17004636&folderPk=103495&pNodeId=221019

Rail watchdogs fear another 'great West train robbery' is looming after it emerged 12 trains being operated by First Great Western are to be sent to another English train company.Lobby group Transport 2000 said yesterday that it feared the loss of the trains would add to the levels of overcrowding experienced on some peak time trains run by Swindon-based First Great Western (FGW) since it cut the number of seats on local services in December 2006.

FGW bosses insisted an equivalent number of trains would be leased from rolling stock companies to cover the loss of the dozen Class 158 trains that will be sent to York-based Northern Rail in December.

But critics remain unconvinced, arguing the move is another example of the "Cinderella" railway in the West suffering while public transport in other parts of the country prospers.

Northern Rail is to receive 30 extra trains from around the country by December to help counter a 19 per cent increase in passenger growth it has experienced since 2004.

Transport 2000 spokes- man David Redgewell said: "Yet again we are seeing a great train robbery, this time with the North robbing the South West. "It's a scandal that trains are being taken from First Great Western at a time when passengers have been suffering from overcrowding on fewer, shorter trains that are packed like sardines.

"Passenger levels are growing in the South West too - but it's being stifled because the capacity is simply just not there to get more people on trains.

"This is clearly a political issue because it is the northern Labour heartlands that are benefiting from extra trains while the South West suffers.

"I would urge all the MPs in the region to start lobbying hard for this type of train robbery to stop."

FGW regional manager Andrew Griffiths said West commuters would not suffer as a result of its trains being sent to York-based Northern Rail in December this year.

Mr Griffiths said: "These units were always going to go off-lease in December. Eventually we'll be getting others to come in their place.

"There's certainly no question of passengers facing any cuts in services or less seats being available.

"The 158s [that are going north] were on short-term hire to us - the leasing company has obviously found another home for them.

"We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet."

Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East and a critic of public transport levels and road congestion in the region, said she had been given reassurances by FGW that no further cuts in rolling stock levels were imminent.

She said: "When I met with First Great Western recently they assured me that the problems suffered during December and January had been sorted and there would be no more cuts to services.

"But I will certainly monitor the situation to ensure that the trains being lost to Northern Rail are replaced with at least the equivalent number being returned to First Great Western."
ENDS

Note the slightly ominous comment from Andrew Griffiths "We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet." My question is from where exactly? To my knowledge almost all spare 158s have been allocated. I understand the FGW want to lease all their 158 stock from one company which is understandable when it comes to servicing etc. But where will the replacement 158's come from Central perhaps?????

I know where there are some 142s going cheap!!!!!!

FGW have a great publicity machine and, give them credit, they have sorted out some issues.

What would really sort out matters?   A service that runs, at or near the reliability level specified across all lines, with trains with adequate capacity - only occasional short standing sessions and NEVER passengers being denied boarding.   And a service that runs when people want to travel at a price they can afford.

Some examples of things that are still not right from my recent, personal experience.
* Over 16% of Southbound services from Chippenham to Trowbridge cancelled in the last week
* Gross overcrowding at Easter, with passengers being denied boarding, train after train
* Lack of service when it's required from Swindon across Wiltshire
* Buy-on-the-day Monday to Friday return fares to London up from under 50 pounds to over 100 pounds from Melksham
* West Wilts to Swindon commuter train rescheduled to give far too long a day.  If you're a commuter from Trowbridge, you're away fromthe town for over 12 hours - that's dreadful for a nation that normally works an 8 hour day.

Oddly enough, I'm NOT requesting a step back to the pre-Decemeber timetable, but it does strike me that all these issues went pear-shaped from Monday, Deccember 11th 2006.

Sorry - but Kerry has been fed a pack of lies as to the general picture, and some very specific 'good news' stories with all the bad news swept under the carpet still.

Here's what I dont get :


"Eventually we'll be getting others to come in their place."

"We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet."

At a West Wiltshire District Council meeting on March 20 2007 (click on http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1685.msg4405#msg4405) Glenda Lamont & Andrew Griffiths both said that they didnt need the units that are going off - lease in December to provide their contracted service.

Whats changed ???

Looking at your comment Lee I'd say that yes they would have enough stock to provide the contracted service but that involves running short trains which as was shown, and still is both on weekdays and weekends, would be grossly overcrowded. This is because when the contract was drawn up it is evident that no one projected ahead what demand would be when the franchise started operating which was in effect at the December timetable change as the old Wessex timetable was still in operation before then.

As long as FGW honour their contract with the government they are guaranteed their franchise extention as they would turn to the government and say we've operated what we've been told to run. It's upto you the government to provide the extra rolling stock or review premium payments if you want to improve the lot of the passenger. Why should FGW care, they havent got to fight a general election!

When you also take into account the ceastion of the Westbury-Southampton locals come December you can probably see why they can say they have enough stock to run what they agreed to run. However if they and the government don't want serious unrest on the railways again in December, they have better find some stock to take the place of the departing 158's.

I do think that FGW do still have one bargaining chip to hand and that is the 180s. Say they were to go to Scotland, that would free up some 158s from up there that could come down south. The 180s have yet to be found a home and personally I think they would make excellent units to operate between Cardiff-Portsmouth. Dream on Tim I hear you say!

You can see why National Express walked away from the Greater Western Franchise negoiations. They saw what was coming but there was no way First were gonna walk away from Great Western and have they done a GNER and bid at any cost???? The one major difference is FGW is backed by a much more stable empire in First than GNER was in having Sea Containers. If that company was not in the mess that it was, it would have been able to keep GNER, allbeit at an almost certain loss, but thats way off topic.

To be honest, it is not suprising lots of people are dreaming/want this! I would love it, especially 5 coaches to play with, instead of 2! The 100 MPH running wouldn't give too much of a timing advantage though IMO

Well after making that comment Jim, I read in next month's Modern Railways that FGW are in discussion with Angel Trains about the possibility of keeping them. As much as we would like to see them operating Cardiff-Portsmouth, the line doesnt really give them much opportunity to run at their full potential as you say.

The short article goes onto highlight that the Dft is keen for FGW to retain the 180s to save it from the further embarrassment of perfectly good rolling stock being left in sidings whilst there is gross overcrowding. I think it was criminal SWT being allowed to release 442s. These are wonderful pieces of rolling stock that aren't being used whilst Portsmouth-London passengers have to put up with 450s which weren't really meant for long distance services. Sorry going off topic again!

I think the 442's is something we both agree on, posibally for different reasons though!

Source quote :

"Seems to be the latest rumour that FGW might well be keeping the 180's. Modern Railways has reported this in the latest edition. Various reasons being mooted: DafT* don't want the embarrassment of almost-new trains going into store / No other TOC will touch them with the proverbial barge pole /  Angel Trains are offering a cheap lease deal rather than see them stored. Or possibly all 3 reasons.

If it turns out to be true it should reduce the chance of having to take on some of the ex-Northern 142's.

* sometimes known as DfT"

Yes that rumour was reported on ukrailway the other day as well. How true it is we shall have to see. Even mentioned them running Cardiff-Portsmouth but I would be highly surprised if they did...though it would do wonders for this line having some decent length stock and the return of 1st class on this route.

Yes the spectre of those lovely Northern 142's making the journey south looms large but imagine the press it would get. "FGW swap modern 158s for buses on wheels".

As far as I am concerned the DafT (I shall use this from now on  ;D) should jolly well pay for the class 180s to stay on the Great Western network. They are being given ^1bn+ of money by First - that's money that comes from us, the fare paying public. Personally I expect something in return for what is, in effect, a tax on rail travel. What I do not expect is for large proportions of the money paid by FGW passengers to be diverted to other franchises (i.e. ones that run through areas where there are many Labour MPs) or to be wasted on nonsense schemes that DafT wants to pursue.

We keep hearing about these 1,000 carriages which are supposed to materialise at some unspecified point in the dim and distant future. That's jam tomorrow. Funding for the class 180s to be kept with FGW is something that could make life better today.

It would, of course, be an absolute scandal if the 180s went into storage when there was massive overcrowding. And it would make DafT even more of a laughing stock than they already are.

No, I don't think they have done a GNER.

The financials for Greater Western are challenging but they do stack up even with reasonably conservative growth estimates. Financially, GNER was a different case altogether. They put in an overly ambitious bid on near impossible growth targets with no margin for error. The premium payment phasing was wrong and the financial flexibility of the franchise - i.e. the amount of financial engineering they could do - was minimal. It only took one or two adverse things to push them over the edge and with a weak parent company they had absolutely nothing to fall back on.

The thing that gets me is how DafT did not recognise the weaknesses in their original bid. Actually I do understand it, they saw pound signs and all logic went out of the window...

Here is an interesting quote (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/05/network_rail_drops_plan_to_clo.html#more

"Between 2009 and 2014 Network Rail expects the government to authorise up to 50 additional carriages to strengthen peak hour services on routes into Manchester and Liverpool, together with lengthening platforms where necessary to take 4-car trains. New platforms are proposed at Salford Central to allow Victoria to Liverpool services to call there, plus the relocation of Salford Crescent station to provide extra capacity for Bolton and Calder Valley services and offer improved interchange opportunities across central Manchester."

Presumably the "DafT" means government funding, i.e. the taxpayer. We all pay in the end, so it is a matter of trade offs between competing demands for a finite pot of cash (or increased subsidy through taxation).

This is interesting, because we all believe that our own train service is the most demanding of public subsidy, especially if we have to put up with crowded trains or road congestion. Yet from my perspective as an FGW commuter into central London, I suffer far less misery than my colleagues who use the underground or commuter services into Waterloo, Cannon Street etc.

So we get into the debate as to who is more worthy of direct or cross subsidy from a general economic perspective. The reality is that some of us will pay one way or another -

Discuss!

We could also get into the debate as to who is more worthy of direct or cross subsidy from a general political perspective. The reality is that some of us will pay one way or another......

Discuss!

180's on an inter regional express service, what could be better solution for both passengers and FGW. Passengers get a level of comfort and speed they deserve and FGW ( and DafT) get an immediate publicity boost to show they are doing something positive at last.

If there is one thing that would get people (back) onto the railway that would be the one. I appreciate that they would be working well within their capacity, but surely there are many routes HST's travel on that rarely allow them 125 mph running.

I suspect though that if ever I find myself travelling on one from Trowbridge I'll have a nasty surprise when my alarm clock goes off.  ;D ;D

Reading-Penzance is 110 max (Via B&H)

It^s not a matter of government providing subsidy. Indeed, the Greater Western franchise does not need subsidy ^ as a whole, it is profitable and financially viable.

The reason I advocate DafT paying for the class 180s is very simple. First Great Western are paying them well over a billion pounds to run the franchise. This is money that comes from us, the fare paying public; it is, in many ways, a stealth tax on rail travel in our region. I want my money to be used to better the rail services I use.

As a consequence of the amount FGW have to pay, they are financially restricted as to what they can do in regards to additional capacity ^ and this is exacerbated by the short nature of the franchise period. They can^t for example, take on significant additional leasing costs without it have an adverse impact on their financial performance. That only leaves DafT as a source of funding.

But be clear, this is not asking DafT for money. It is asking DafT to allow FGW to keep more of the money we give them on the condition it is spent on additional capacity. It may be a subtle distinction, but this isn^t subsidy.

I want to address this point separately.

The pot of cash, so to speak, is limited because of the system.

Most private companies have very little difficulty in finding enough cash to expand and grow, even when this cannot come from their own internal reserves. The reason for this is because capital in the economy will flow to where it can make a return: provided a new venture appears profitable, there will be investors willing to fund it.

Despite the fact that many franchises are profitable and growing, the railways do not work in this way; and Greater Western is good a case in point. Capital does not flow to the railways as it could because of several reasons. First, many of the franchise periods are too short for a return to be made on large capital projects. Second, the government intervenes far too much which makes investment an unattractive option. Third, the government wants to use the railways as a cash cow to generate money for the state which stunts the level of return that can be made.

If you want to expand the railway then get government out of the equation. Make franchises longer and let TOCs make more profit. I know people will often criticise profits. But where do you think expansion comes from? It can only come from surplus capital which can only be generated by making a profit. No profit, no surplus, no reason for investors to invest capital, no expansion, no growth.

It is no coincidence that most businesses run without unnecessary government interference are perfectly successful and, by and large, deliver on the needs of their customer, whereas most functions that are run or overseen by government are exceptionally bad value for money in that they cost a great deal and deliver a poor standard of service.

It may appear that way, but to get the true picture of franchise subsidy/premium you really need to add back in the direct revenue grant paid by DfT to Network Rail to shore up the track access charges (about ^2bn per annum to the railway as a whole, which would be about ^15bn pv over the FGW franchise term - not sure how much of that would be directly attributable to FGW, but it's probably a fair guess that it would wipe out most of that premium if included in track access charges)


The premium paid by FGW to DfT provides part of the overall budget for supporting transport services in general (including that juicy revenue grant to Network Rail, plus several billion per year supporting other franchises). If the premium is reduced, then this reduces the amount available to support non-profitable public transport. If the net costs of running FGW increase, either someone somewhere else loses out - or total subsidy to the industry has to increase.

This is a big money go round, and whichever way you look at it there will be economic (and as someone else mentioned - political) trade offs to be made from any redistribution.

The point about the wider costs of the Greater Western infrastructure could be true. My gut feeling ^ and it is no more than that as I have not properly analysed the figures ^ is that if the system was organised in a commercially viable manner (i.e. longer franchise terms, vertical integration, etc.) then Greater Western would, as a whole, be a financially viable business. That does not mean to say, of course, that some reorganisation of the network would not be required. I think it would.

The system is the critical element in this. The way in which the railway is organised at the moment is not a particularly sensible commercial solution; it is certainly not the way that the business would be structured if it had been created by natural market forces rather than by government intervention. I have written quite extensively about this on my blog, so I won^t repeat the whole argument here. However, the most critical thing is that the short term nature of the railway limits capital investment because there isn^t sufficient time for a return to be made on that investment. This reduces what we have called the ^pot of cash^ available to the railway as a whole and means it is more reliant on government investment (or subsidy) than it otherwise would be. Rail is a long term game because it is a capitally intensive industry, but it is organised in a system which is short term by its very nature.

This is an argument which goes far wider than Greater Western; it applies to all franchises. The question is, how many franchises, if they were organised differently, would suddenly become profitable? I don^t know the answer, but I suspect that at least some would see a change in their financial status. For example, at the moment train leasing costs come straight off the bottom line. If franchises were longer (or permanent) then there would be more incentive for TOCs to own their own rolling stock. This would mean that stock would be classed as an asset and only the depreciation costs would come off the balance sheet. Alternatively, finance leases could be used which would have a similar impact as they have a different financial treatment to operating leases which are the ones most commonly used today. Another example would be the use of assets. If there was vertical integration then I have no doubt that the railway companies could sweat their assets far more than they currently do. Stations, for example, are areas of prime footfall. They are, therefore, ideal for commercial development which would yield returns to their owners. This ^sweating^ doesn^t happen at the moment because most TOCs lease stations from Network Rail, so there is no incentive for them to implement extensive development programmes.

So, if some of the franchises could be financially restructured then that would reduce the overall subsidy required for the rail network. If course, it is likely that some subsidy may well remain. It^s fine to ask ^where will this come from?^ but, surely, the first question to ask is: should this be given? Appreciably this is a very wide question incorporating matters of political philosophy (the principles on which you believe a country should be run) and economics (the most effective way of organising the economy).

My personal answer is that no, subsidy should not be given. Subsidy, where it is granted in any industry, is a method of penalising the successful and efficient to prop up the inefficient and unsuccessful. Moreover, it is highly injurious to the natural mechanism of the market which, if left unhampered, operates in the best interest of consumers.

Take Greater Western as a case in point. If GW is financially viable and profitable then it should be left alone. Surplus capital (profit) can be invested back into the business to support growth in demand or, alternatively, can be put to other uses elsewhere. If the government takes money from GW to give to some other railway operation the impact is that that surplus capital is not flowing to an area where it can be put to productive use ^ i.e. where there is a natural demand for it. It is flowing to an operation which will not generate a return because, financially, it is simply not viable. The capital gets absorbed, no return is generated so there is no new surplus and, as a result, the economy as a whole is poorer. In other words, the capital seed has been consumed, and not invested.

GW is also poorer because it now has less money to invest back in its own services. This in turn can lead to a stunted level of investment which then leads to other problems. In practical terms what could happen, for example, is that GW suffers overcrowding because although demand is growing it doesn^t have the capital to buy new carriages; that capital has gone to some other operation where demand, in reality, is not great enough to sustain a rail service. So, resources have been misallocated against the stated preferences of consumers.

The other consideration is that rail, where it is subsidised, can have a crowding out effect on other services. For example, a subsidised rail service may mean there is a much lower incentive for more, better or faster bus services. Remove the rail service and other forms of transport will increase and improve.

At the end of the day, subsidy creates more problems than it solves. It is an extremely inefficient way to run an economy and, ultimately, to satisfy consumer demand. This, of course, is a much wider debate but it does have a very practical implication for the rail industry.

Do you not think that in some cases (Melksham being a good example , click on http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/open.html) an initial subsidy can be used to "kickstart" (as the DfT currently does with bus services) a viable rail service? In many cases , TOC's such as FGW simply dont see the potential until it stares them in the face. In my view , this form of funding can seen as an investment rather than a subsidy.


This may well be the case , but will the customer use these bus services? Extensive research suggests that passengers simply dont see the bus as an attractive alternative to the train or (say) light rail / tram , and would rather use their cars if heavy/ light rail is not an option. This , of course , has economic , environmental & social implications , all of which would also relate to increasing levels of congestion leading to higher levels of carbon emissions , pollution & road accidents.

Quotes from the original Beeching Report :

"It might pay to run railways at a loss in order to prevent the incidence of an even greater cost which would arise elsewhere if the railways were closed. Such other costs may be deemed to arise from congestion, provision of parking space, injury and death, additional road building, or a number of other causes."

"It is not thought that any of the firm proposals put forward in this Report would be altered by the introduction of new factors for the purpose of judging overall social benefit. Only in the case of suburban services around some of the larger cities is there clear likelihood that a purely commercial decision within the existing framework of judgment would conflict with a decision based upon total social benefit. Therefore, in those instances, no firm proposals have been made but attention has been drawn to the necessity for study and decision."

"Therefore, if the services are to be regarded as essential, the municipalities concerned must join with the railways and bus interests to evolve a co-ordinated system of services, with due regard to the economics of both forms of transport. It is, for example, illogical to operate subsidised municipal bus services in competition with unprofitable railway services, without any attempt to co-ordinate them.

If, on the other hand, the services are not regarded as essential and coordination is not found possible, the sound commercial course is for the railways to risk pricing themselves out of the business and then, if necessary, close the services."

I think , CJ , that you probably hit the nail on the head with the following quote :


My personal view is that it is MORALLY wrong to withdraw subsidy from areas where there are overwhelming non - commercial factors that justify such subsidy. As inefficient & wasteful as such funding can be , it is a fundamental truth that the vast majority of people believe that such funding SHOULD be provided by the state.

Even Margaret Thatcher realised that , which is why she rejected the Serpell report , which would have gone far further than Beeching ever envisaged.

She also rejected the sell - off of the railways , commenting that it would be a privatisation too far.

On a related note , isnt it great to learn that the newspaper readers of Oxford can count on such up-to-the-minute news (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/05/fgw_express_trains_in_line_for.html#more

The DfT has announced that London and Birmingham Railway Ltd (a subsidiary of Govia) has been awarded the contract to run the West Midlands franchise (links below.)
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=293466&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/westmidlands

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/wmfranchise

The new franchise will begin on 11th November 2007 and will run until 19th September 2015. The DfT has the right to terminate the franchise after six years if the operator is failing to meet agreed performance targets.

The West Midlands franchise combines the current Silverlink County services between London Euston and Northampton with the West Midlands local and regional service groups of Central Trains. The Department will pay a subsidy of ^1,127m (NPV) over the franchise of seven years and 10 months.

Among the list of improvements is the following :

"New class 172 diesel trains to replace the existing class 150 DMUs operating on the Snow Hill line services in the Birmingham area by July 2010."

Can we in the FGW area possibly have the Class 150's? I have a few ideas of where they could be put to good use (link below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2569.msg5679#msg5679

However , the proposed fares policy is already causing controversy (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6225170.stm

There 150's have no end corridor connections