Great Western Coffee Shop

The current Great Western franchise is ending on 31st March 2013, and just before Christmas [2011], the Department for Transport (DfT) published a consultation document concerning the future provision of services after that date on services that it covered.   

The DfT proposal is for a single, 15 year franchise - effective from 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2028, and their consultation document runs to 31st March 2012. The press release that covers the consultation is at:
*> http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-news-20111222a
The link / header page on the DfT website is here:
*> http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-36
And the Great Western Franchise Replacement Consultation document itself is at:
*> http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-36/great-western-franchise-replacement.pdf
which is some 6 Mbytes / 99 pages long.

This is probably the most important and far reaching consultation that's relevant to this forun since it was set up.  Rail travel is an integral part of the economy of the South West of England and South Wales  - its tentacles reach directly or indirectly into many aspects of life, and getting this one "right" is of paramount, and long-reaching consequence. 

The consultation's originators have included some 34 specific points on which they seek input (but I can't say that I can see anything that limits inputs to those specific questions).

Views vary as to how effective consultations inputs actually are. Some will say that they just allow boxes to be ticked.  Others who are less cynical will say that they can make a real difference.  Of course, it would be impossible for every suggestion made to be taken up, so many ideas put forward may, in the end, appear to have been "for nowt".  But (personally), I don't believe that's even the case ... it may at times feel like no-one listens, but if enough people talk, and keep on talking, we can each and all help towards shaping a rail service that's appropriate for our needs for the next decade and a half.

---

"This forum is provided by a First Great Western Customer, for First Great Western customers".  So says our introduction page. Although we currently have "First" in our current title (who knows beyond 2013?), the forum is not sponsored or funded by the First Group in any way.  So we're very clearly an appropriate place / tool to discuss the next franchise, independent of who is eventually awarded the franchise.

---

This new board "Looking forward - 2013 to 2028" has been created for discussions on the new franchise, the process, and other aspects associated with lines / services currently run as part of the Great Western franchise, or discussed for inclusion formally or informally.   

The moderator team will (as ever) be taking a keen interest from both a personal and a group standpoint, and they're tentatively proposing that the CoffeeShop inputs be summarised and used to make a submission.  Views on that welcomed.

Speaking personally again, I would encourage groups and individuals to read the documents carefully, and make submissions to the Department for Transport where appropriate ... especially where they can add local, journey specific,  or specialised knowledge, feelings and information to help make a better outcome for the whole.

P.S. If you are not a member of the Coffee Shop, but would like to contribute, please sign up.  Registration is free - we (the team of moderators and administrators running the forum) just need to have a mechanism to know who's posting so that we're not flooded out by spam and other inapproriate material.  You can read more about being a member [here] (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1761.0)

The 99 page consultation document is published under the Open Government License for public sector information, and this gives us on this forum a far greater freedom to quote than we would have been allowed in the past.    The full license is at:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

You are free to:

* copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
* adapt the Information;
* exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.

You must, where you do any of the above:

* acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence;
* ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or your use of the Information;
* ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source;
* ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

But this licence does not cover the use of:

* personal data in the Information;
* Information that has neither been published nor disclosed under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;
* departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;
* military insignia;
* third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;
* Information subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and design rights
* identity documents such as the British Passport.

So I think than means ... we can quote just about any of the document here, in large chunks if we wish, provided that we refer back to where it came from and the license that I've linked to above.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/franchise_timetable.jpg)

From: Great Western Franchise Replacement Consultation (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-36/great-western-franchise-replacement.pdf)
Republished here under: Open Government License (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/)

I have split off a good and wideranging discusssion that developed under this thread, and given it a life of its own at
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10049

I have also made this topic sticky - so that it remains at the top of the board for newcomers looking for general guidance on the consultation process, and the metrics of what we're providing on the "Coffee Shop" to help and assist them in that.

Closing date is 31st March.   I have been reminded today that any submissions which are posted rather than emailed really need to be in the post on Wednesday evening.

For those wondering about the revised tendering process, this appears in Hansard....

Announcement due tomorrow about the three outstanding franchises. Christian Wolmar tweeted tonight that the GW franchise bid is being absndoned without compensation being offered.

Presumably a restart being ordered with new bids? Christian ram out of characters....

Modern Railways magazine (Feb 2013) suggests that the Brown review of franchising, while supporting the franchising concept in generally warned that a concession/managament contract might be more suited for a franchise that is to experience a major infrastructure project. The magazine suggested that Great Western and Thameslink fit that discription, so maybe a concession/managament contract for GW?

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9838263/Fears-of-fresh-rail-fiasco-as-Great-Western-franchise-bid-is-halted.html):

So there you go. First appear to have an extended GW franchise for now, and Thameslink looks like a management contract.

It was announced at 7am today that the Great Western franchise competition will be terminated.

The current franchise contract is being extended by 28 weeks until October and an additional two-year contract will then commence with FirstGroup, while longer-term franchising proposals will be set out in the spring

Transport Secretary^s written statement to the House of Commons (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-franchising--16)

In response, FirstGroup have issued the following statement - although there is no mention of the millions of pounds they've probably spent already on the cancelled bid:

First Great Western and First Capital Connect rail franchises (http://www.firstgroup.com/corporate/latest_news/?id=009081)

Thanks for posting that, GWR2006

There is a need for all concerned for the 2 year contract to allow the metamorphosis of services and the growth of passenger numbers and travel requirements, and not to freeze things at "currently committed and unstoppable" only.  That would turn a fiasco into a 30 month frozen disaster.

Top of the agenda for our "Wiltshire Link" meeting on Saturday is where rail and connection in Wiltshire should go for the next period, and the meeting was specifically set up to take a look at things when it became clearer what mechanisms would be used to take services forward.

Any user groups / thoughtful / knowledgable travellers / wannabe travellers in, through, effecting Wiltshire welcome.  Please email or PM me or Phil if coming (nice to know numbers).   Target outcome - a joined up set of suggestions to local councils, central govt, rail industry supporting practical options / improvements that are supported across the board.   A unified passenger voice for Wiltshire.

Link to meeting .... http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=11891.0

The Telegraph's article includes:


In two and a half years time it will be nearly 2016, but the only major project completed will be Reading? Unless all the electrification is also complete, and all the new rolling stock has been delivered, won't that basic point about accurate forecasting continue to be present?  Does this mean that any orders for new EMU stock by the TOC will also be deferred, or does it mean DfT will make the decision and order it, or cascade it from elsewhere, making there own decision on what goes where?

Paul

Southern have recently launched a procurement for new 110mph EMUs on behalf of DaFT, though they won't be used on Southern services.  It's quite likely that they with either end up on GWML, or alternatively be used on Thameslink services to enable the cascade of 319s to happen in time for Western and North Western electrification.

I thought electrification toOxford / Newbury was due by end 2015?....

I wonder whether the DfT will start negotiations with FGW over the additional two years by asking them to pay the original premiums due under the old franchise? :-)
Nothing like getting the original franchise back without the contracted payments....grrr

Like with Virgin when negotiating their extension the ball is very much in First Groups court and they are unlikely to enter into a new contract with the originally contracted franchise payments.

Im aware of all that, the point is that the changed dates will almost certainly mean that the decision on the new EMUs is being taken away from the future TOC.  As things stood, it was going to be up to the incoming (next) GW TOC to sort out suitable EMU stock - with various options being mentioned in the ITT.  As it now turns out, the next TOC will probably take over with a fait accompli in place, inspired by DfT - and that is contrary to their recent policy statements.

Paul

Seeing as its likely to be a management contract, rather than a full franchise while all the work is going on - that's a likely outcome.

Paul Clifton, BBC South Transport correspondent tweets -

Paul Clifton reckons FGW can't run the contract without ^100m per year in Revenue Support to stay afloat - no wonder they handed the keys back as soon as they could!

However, if this is the case, what would the point of offering them a 2-year extension be, rather than give the operation to Directly OPerated Railways, and let them spend this money directly? THe staff would TUPE across, so no loss of key staff, and who would presumably TUPE again to whoever wins the eventual new franchise...seems a waste of taxpayer money to spend this money AND more in order for FGW to earn at least 1% of revenue as profit (which I believe is what Virgin are doing).

Just seems a waste of taxpayer monety to me. What is 1% of FGW revenue?

Chris - its politics steering the decisions not economics or common sense. To give GW to D.O.R. to run for two years would be an absolute last resort for a tory government that must for its own political agenda try to make the most of its diusastrous privatisation policy. It justs leaves us as taxpayers to pay more for the tory phiosophy.

....not forgetting of course that the Labour Party did nothing to try and re-nationalise during their 13 year tenure  ;)

And that setting up another Directly Operated Railways management team in a short time to take over for 2 years and getting all the safety case approved wouldn't be done overnight or without some considerable expense.  It may actually be cheaper to pay FGW if they can get the right price.

given all the staff are TUPE'ed exactly what is the safety case that needs approval. A pointer o the relevant document would be appreciated.

I'm in agreement with pretty much everything there Gents.

I think as FirstGroup were intending to hand back the keys hence why a new ITT and Bidding Process was drawn up, then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to run the franchise on better terms.

I'm trying to get my head around what the Government is trying to achieve here. Whilst in one way I think it was good that the WCML Blunder was exposed. I think given the fact that FG were going to "risk" handing back GWML and winning again, but wanted WCML regardless (AIUI they were always preferred bidder).

Perhaps the government should pursue the DoR route. But the cynic in me seems to think that the government is going with the easiest option at the present time just to quickly move on based on the amount of grief the blunder has caused them. Which as I am sure we are all aware, may not be the best one in 2.5 years time. Nor may it be the cheapest in 2.5 Years Time, FGW may end up handing back the keys anyway.

Like I have said in the past, as long as I don't ever see "Arriva Great Western" on the side of the HST I am about to catch. Knowing how dreadful CrossCountry were when they first started their operations. I'll be happy for now!

Why would Arriva Great Western necessarily be a bad thing? The parent company, Deutsche Bahn, knows a thing or two about passenger railways and sister company Chiltern are often lauded as one of the better TOCs. Their joint venture at London Overground is also winning many plaudits.

Perhaps someone else could provide reference, but as I understand it the senior management team are not TUPE'ed and so Directly Operated Railways would have to find senior managers with the right experience.  Also as I understand it the senior managers are named on the Safety Case and if you have an entirely new senior management then you need a new safety case.  Happy to be corrected if I am wrong. 

Not really contradicting what you have said, ellendune, but rent-a-manager exists, for example as First Class Partnerships (nothing to do with First Group).

I know it can be done, just that it does not come without a significant cost! Whenever you get contract staff rather than an employee you always end up paying more. Whether it is a computer programmer or a railway senior manager.

DOR was mooted for the West Coast route but the option was discounted because the safety case couldn't be sorted out in time. DOR would need to find a senior management team as well, and considering the disruption likely to the FGW franchise over the coming years they'd probably want an experienced team, so it may not be easy to find the right people. Transferring to DOR for 2 years would be expensive as well as everything would have to be re-branded twice in a short period of time, if DOR took over the franchise isn't going to be called First Great Western. This is also a completely different use of DOR, it's an operator of last resort, but there are other options available to the DfT here.

I've read in the industry press that the two main reasons were safety case, as mentioned above, but also that DfT can't realistically find TWO new senior management teams in short time. It's not just about GWML, but WCML - there is a worry that if DfT did not treat both franchises in the same way then one might make a legal challenge on the way the other was handled.

The other issue to consider is that nobody actually knows what (if anything) First are actually being paid to manage the extension. They might only be on a peppercorn rate.

A peppercorn rate would never be acceptable to the hareholders.

Got 'em by the long and fluffies?

It would be more acceptable than DOR running the show.

They'll also gain another two years experience running the franchise, which should bode well for any future re-bid too.

More acceptable to who? Certainly not the board of directors who would be breaking the law if they didn't maximise the return to shareholders (Section 172 Companies Act 2006).

Yes but the law does allow them to take a slightly longer term view.  I would suppose we are talking about a cost plus management contract. In which case they would not actually be making a loss!

I thought it might be worthwhile quoting s172 of the Companies Act 2006:
I have omitted parts 2 and 3 as they are less relevant.

'Ask the experts' time please.  Now I know what TUPE means, could they not just make a deal with the most senior TUPE people in FGW and ask them to form a company called "Now a New GW" or something, and give them a management contract?  I imagine such senior people all meet this 'safety case' thing, a term which does not sound logical English to me, so it must be American, I expect.

Just on another tack, I cannot believe that FGW will not apply for compensation for having been mucked about.

Wouldn't that be merely offering an extension of the existing franchise to the existing management of First Great Western, in all but a new name?

With First Group's share price having taking a hefty hit over the past few days following the release of the report into the franchising fiasco, I don't think the board are going to be suggesting to shareholders that they show some altruism and offer to run the franchise for two years for nothing. Shareholders and altruism are unlikely bedfellows.

First Group will be looking to get the maximum return from the management contract.

My real fear for the future is that the fiasco will have put off all the other original bidders for the various paused franchises and they won't bother re-bidding (in the cases of Greater Western and InterCity West Coast), or will withdraw their bids following the amended Invitations to Tender for the Thameslink, Southern & Great Northern (TSGN) and Essex Thameside franchises. Leaving the incumbents as the only show in town.

Well unless I am reading the DfT press release incorrectly they haven't completely ruled out DOR yet:

I think that's to try and make sure that the incumbent operator doesn't have DaFT completely over a barrel in terms of negotiations of the management contract. Though whether it succeeds will depend on how the current operator judges the actual ability of the department to implement DOR control and at what cost.

Unless they were thinking of pulling out of rail franchising all together, I do not think First Group would willingly part with their senior management team at FGW.  

If they cannot agree a management contract with DfT then they will have to pay them to do very little until the next franchise bid comes up for preparation.

The longer they are not running a railway he less useful they will be.

So if they want to remain in the rail franchising business they will "need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others" namely DfT  and, given the extraordinary publicity campaign that Virgin ran over the WCML franchise, also FGW's customers and the public.

Don't forget DfT asked Directly Operated Railways to do the MINIMUM NECESSARY. 

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9804014/Government-faces-challenge-to-recruit-vital-rail-experts.html):

I thought the difference between the TUPEs and the top brass (should emphasise I only have had helpful contact with the top brass of FGW and have great respect for them) is that the people who 'lose' their jobs when a franchise changes are the 'top brass' and the tupes go on running the show. 

It just occurred to me that a DOR operation is just the top brass (only without bonuses )so what really is the problem during the interregnum caused by the franchising fiasco?  One could even hire in those top brass to DOR if they feel like it?

They don't loose their jobs if the main company (First Group in this instance) decide that they need them in order to put in a franchise bid for another line. If First Group wanted to keep them for a later franchise bid I am sure they could find them something to do and continue to pay them.  Directly Operated Railways could try and employ them, but the people concerned are entitled to make their own choice as to who they work for. 

Without such people First Group would not be in a position to make further franchise bids. 

I believe it is sometimes the case that the top level staff are employed by First Group rather than First Great Western so they won't TUPE across to a new company.

It would appear that there are 8 people in these senior positions

http://www.joinusonthejourney.co.uk/NonCmsPages/our_structure_mark.htm

Of those only 2 would appear to be relevant to any 'safety case' the Operations Director & the Engineering Director - of the others only the Customer Services Director would have a day to day role - others such as Finance I presume are already in place as DOR already operates.

DOR (or whoever) will have no strategic or development roles but it is their role to ensure the running of the railway while a new franchise is sorted out & all the engineering work (Reading / Electrification) is completed.

Surely in this caretaker role DOR would be fine allowing TOCs to work on any tender process at the high / strategic level.

Seems to me this safety case has more than a whiff of Yes Minister about it.

That list is severely out of date. James Burt left FGW in September 2009. Neil Mickelthwaite left in 2010 and Matthew Golton is now apparently back as Bid Director rather than Projects Director, at least according to his LinkedIn profile.

However the two people most likely to hold the 'safety case' are still in position.

The current list of directors can be seen here:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/About-Us/Our-business/Our-executive-team

I agree that Deutsche Bahn know a thing or too. I mean, they ran WSMR before their demise and I'd say I've never travelled on such a better service. Not to mention such excellent value for money. The 4 Hours + Journey to London as the onboard service was so good really didn't phase me...

Based on my experience of CrossCountry when they first started, something that was extensively covered on this forum by yours truly and others...

Yes they may have improved over the years, I really couldn't say as I seldom use them now. But having to put up with the (was then; not sure if it's improved) awful service for nearly 2 years it really didn't fill me with confidence that they were taking a punt at GWML...

I can remember being told that if I wanted a cup of Tea in First Class on the 14:44 BRI - PLY that was running 1 hour late I couldn't until Standard Class had been first. But I could purchase one if I so wished. Presenting a Ticket which was about ^60 on that particular journey did nothing more than a response of "I'm sure if you write to crosscountry they'll deal with your complaint and apologise"

I didn't want an apology... I wanted a cup of tea :D >:(

Catering on CrossCountry is a problem (I often board with coffee and scran in hand), the fares policies of CrossCountry are a problem. But their staff are second to none and their fleet reliability is amongst the best in the industry.

I don't particularly like Voyagers, but for many of my journeys they are the only option, unless I go for a FGW DMU stopper. If my journey isn't time critical I will choose other options, such as Bristol - Taunton via Westbury, but when I need to be somewhere at a certain time I'll use CrossCountry.

Their on-train staff are also, in my experience, very accommodating to people like me, who will often have a series of split tickets, or be using routeing loopholes, to avoid fares priced by CrossCountry. I've only ever once had a ticket withdrawn for further investigation. That was done by a TM who wasn't sure but with whom I had a polite exchange and accepted the zero fare replacement to allow me to complete my journey. In that case I received an apology and goodwill gesture when it was found that I was travelling with a valid ticket.

Now, back to the successor franchisee on Greater Western. I'm still backing National Express. If they re-bid.....

I agree with all of that - I don't even mind the trains too much, though the biggest bug bear for me continues to be the lack of seating.  A trip I made on one last Sunday, a Manchester to Bournemouth afternoon service, was horrendous.  The totally inadequate 4-car Class 220 Voyager was absolutely packed solid all the way from Birmingham to Reading.  No service disruption, so I can only assume it's like that every Sunday.

It is.....

I agree with you PoV. Staff are excellent, moral certainly has improved over the years.

Fares are a problem, Catering is a problem and Cell Phone Reception on a Voyager is a problem and certainly agree that capacity is a problem. Hence why Catering is a further problem :D

As FTN said in the other thread, Unintended Consequences will bite you every single time :D

---

Please, BNM, Please... No.

But may I ask why? or am I detecting high levels of sarcasm? I'm minded to take into account National Express East Anglia. Who unfortunately left things in such a state, that I feel sympathetic towards their Successor GreaterAnglia. To be honest whoever picked up that franchise was on a hiding to nothing. There were some comments in Saturdays Meeting that since the NXEA take over they've got worse. I disagree in parts.

• The majority of the Class 321 Fleet has been deep cleaned and the worst units have had a refresh which does make travelling with them more attractive
• They now offer complimentary refreshments to First Class Passengers.
• A refurbishment of the First Class Lounge at London Liverpool Street has recently commenced
• The Revenue Team seem to be a much more common occurrence onboard the trains and they are always pleasant to speak too
• The new TOC in my opinion seems much more customer friendly, In particular I had a gripe at them on Twitter when they couldn't issue me with a particular ticket. This was resolved within a week or two and buying said ticket is no longer an issue. (Apparently I've become a bit of a celebrity as I am the only one who asks for that ticket :D )
  
• Their twitter service has improved since the days of NXEA

---

That being said... I am also looking over the border at c2c who seem to get very high levels of punctuality. Have excellent reliability and also have a good presence on twitter. They also receive very high passenger satisfaction ratings AIUI. However I am not so sure they're quite so customer friendly. In particular, starting a journey at a station where ticket office is closed and the TVM's have failed (Has happened to me at Chalkwell 4 times). Trying to get a ticket or collect a booked one is like getting blood out of a stone...! We also know what I could say about the Class 357's Comfort Reliability Features... Hmmm perhaps I'd better not :P :D

*edit* Managed to spell threat thread correctly ;)

I have to agree a definate no to National Exprsss & Arriva running the GW franchise.

First seem to be doing an ok job so far so why change something that isnt really broken  especially with all the upcoming disruption to the gw region with Crossrail and electrification.

Any train operating company that's been around a while will have its supporters and people who really dislike it, and much of that dislike will come from people who's services have been less that reasonable under one of that TOC's franchises.  But whether that comes from the TOC own business approach, conditions laid down on it by the franchise awarder, or decisions it took in order to win the franchise in the first place is an interesting question.

Would I favour a company that provide me with a very unreliable service indeed, with trains "held together with glass fibre", a company that has a fearsome reputation for altering services with little apparent thought to the inconvenience this may case, a company that changed its definition of "offpeak" to dramatically increase its fare take, or a company that cut back from five trains at a variety of good times to just two which cater for little but their saving hiring an extra train?

Or another question - would I favour a company who have provided help in putting forward an excellent case for a better future service an who I feel I can work with, a company that's got the backing of a major parent and has shown by example it would invest in a longer franchise, a company which has already shown faith in upping service levels, or a company that has trains it somehow manages to keep cleaner than everyone else's and has a strong reputation for revenue protection - vital in areas where loss of money and passenger counts effects the viability of services?

I'm intentionally not expressing any view as to the weight of factors - but I have quoted what are essentially well know good and bad points for all four of the companies that were bidders.  The company's own business approach is important ... as everyone will be in the same boat against invitations to bid (or should be - lack of this equallity may have been a WCML issue), as is a company's willingness to stand up for what it believes in.  Problem is - if it stands up too much for what it believes in against flaws in the ITT, it may find itself putting in a less well received bid and being rules out.   It's a complex balance!

I'm afraid Arriva are in my bad books. Here in Wales, WAG (Welsh Assembly Government) ordered a fleet of 6 new Optare Tempo buses for the Carmarthen - Aberystwyth bus service, a core route of the fledgling TrawsCambria network, now being re-branded as TrawsCymru. The service was to be known as TC1 and operate hourly from 6am to 8pm.

However, Arriva decided to rip a whole in the TrawsCambria network by running their own commertial service 40 between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. Operating out of their Aberystwyth depot the service is hourly, but with much shorter operating hours and the new WAG-funded buses have not materialised.

Their Welsh rail operation has also anoyed me. They purchase a fleet of mark2 coaches, but rather than use them to improve capacity I am told they sacked the manager who was in charge when the stock was purchased and left the mark2s to rot in sidings.