Hi

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

It appears that Alison is suggesting that all the improvements that Network Work and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) make will have no significant impact on Train puntuality and reliability for FGW Intercity traffic unless significant investment is made in Reading.

Any ideas when this will happen?

Commuting daily from BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) to Reading, I accept that platform and track capacity problems at both BPW(extra platforms due in May and late 2007) and Reading do cause delays, but the most frequent cause of problem is mechanical breakdown of trains. just one train failure between London/Reading in the afternoon causes mayhem!

How does FGW compare to other rail franchises for reliability?

All the best

Simon

Hi

My gripe is not with the engineering overrun, but FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s response to it. I accept that root cause is not FGW fault but the contigency plan is. To quote from Gelenda Lamont's letter (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=111)

These trains were in Swansea for the start of service on Tuesday morning as it was our obvious aim to operate a normal service from then on. In addition we had contingency plans in place, in case the Network Rail work over-ran, with buses ready to transport customers on Tuesday morning however it soon became apparent that the over-run would be much longer than Tuesday morning.

Its a shame that the contigency plan did not invlove having ONE train at Cardiff for the bus passengers. In the end, the 0710 from BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) was sent to Cardiff and still hadn't left by 08:00.

I was at BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) from waiting from 06:50 to 8:00 with no information.

FGW knew about the overrun on Monday. The could have provided

- information
- buses to BTM/Swindon
- Started the Bristol TM^‡(resolve) trains from Cardiff or BPW

I'm sorry for going on about this, but this is the worst rail disruption I have experienced, and whislt information can't fix the problem, it can give people time to plan options.

 

Thank you for your reply, much appreciated.

My main gripe is not the overrun, or the current skeleton service, but FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s reaction to it.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6542545.stm it is clear that FGW knew about the problem at Port Talbot on Monday.

However on Tuesday, I and many hundreds of others stood at the platform at Bristol Parkway waiting for trains that where cancelled and delayed, with no information. At least today there is information and skeleton service!

Why can't FGW keep it's customers informed on what is going and when they can expect train?
Why didn't FGW move some trains to Cardiff ahead of these engineering works in case of an overrun?
Why can't FGW move trains from Swansea to the rest of the network using local lines, the main line under supervision?

Thank you for your reply.

I do not expect FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to have twice as many trains as they need to run a service, but I would expect them to be able to run a skeleton service at short notice, especially when part of the main line is shutdown over Easter (Port Talbot).

Overruns are not new, but would it not have been wise to place a couple of trains at Cardiff incase there was a problem, instead of having virtually the whole Wales->London Paddington fleet stranded in Swansea.

Surely Network Rail kept FGW uptodate with developments and FGW could have handled this mornings chaos better?

Finally, the bulk of the passengers for this line in the morning use Bristol Parkway station and they where left without any service, or information for almost 2 hours whilst FGW and Network tried to initiate  a skeleton service.

Yet another day of train chaos due to poor planning.

Every train from Swansea cancelled. New trains added from Cardiff but time shifted by three hours to prevent anyone travelling before 8am. So passengers at BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) had NO service, and passengers at Swindon, DPW and Reading had a disrupted service.

Does anyone else every wonder how FGW^▸ (First Great Western) was able to win the current franchise? Surely the government must of looked at performance record, reliability and management ability before awarding the franchise? Alas, it appears not!

Anyone who thinks it might be Network Rail's fault, just consider if it was wise for FGW to have a contigency plan incase of an engineering overrun.

If the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) had any sense they would terminate this franchise immediately and award it to someone else, and ensure that the current management team of FGW were never allowed to work in the Rail Industry again.

Hi

I don't mean to knock these carriages. What saddens me is that First Group are willing to spend ^300 million replacing the existing TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) fleet, when the TPE is in much better condition than the First Great Western fleet.

The old Thames fleet is in poor condition and needs investment.
The old Wessex fleet needs replacing.
The old FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) fleet needs replacing.

I can't understand why First Group has prioritised TPE over FGW.

Hi,

Bristol Evening Post, http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk, has published at article showing that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are the worst performing local and national rail franchises. Nice of them to confirm the what I already know.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144913&command=displayContent&sourceNode=231190&home=yes&more_nodeId1=144916&contentPK=17004511

It appears they are proud of their achievement!

I doubt that FGW has delivered 10% reliability in my experience over the past month.

I know the government must share some of the blame for the poor service we receive, but FGW are solely responsible for power failures, engine failures. To cap it all, they are supplementing the current local fleet with decommissioned trains from First Groups Transpenine operation.







 

Hi

I disagree!

The chance of an accident occuring on a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) 125 is approximately that same as any other train.

The chance of an injury in an accident though is higher on a HST 125 than on more modern trains!

Why?

- Glass used (windows, doors and luggage racks) is not laminated
- No roll bars in carriages
- Overhead luggage racks are poorly shaped
- Construction/design techiques have improved dramatically in the last 20+ years

Why does the governemt not allow/encourage FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to replace the rollowing stock. Why do the customers of FGW, who pay the most for their journies have the worst and potentially least safe travel experience.

Hi

The biggest shame about is that there is not a simple route from Swindon to Oxford.

If network rail could build, or re-open, track to link Swindon, Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge it would open up those towns and the The East Midlands to the South West. Think of the number of trips via London and car journeys that could be saved.

As it is, people have to go via Didcott Parkway, and since many trains from teh South West do not stop their, the timings can be tricky.

The sad truth of our rail system is that if you are not heading towards London,  or another major city, you can forget Rail an option.

All the best

Simon