Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/First-Great-Western-named-as-Rail-Business-of-the-Year-27022015.htm

............I very much doubt it was customers who voted!!!

Other businesses, I suspect.

4 other awards came their way too

April has come early this year. Is this as a result of global warming?

Rail businesses! So a nice mutual backslapping session...........rather like those old pictures of Soviet Generals awarding each other medals! ;D

Its amazing how little research the media and the faceless Twitter account holders do.  They don't seem to realise there was an award for 'Rail Business Of The Year' and also 'Train Operator Of The Year' (which was won by Merseyrail).

From Western Morning News (http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Great-Western-best-rail-firm/story-26095194-detail/story.html):

Contrary to popular belief on forums & social media, there are many happy FGW customers.

Indeed, and I am usually one of them.
FGW certainly have their faults but IME are better than most other TOCs. The Pullman sways my vote a bit, but also the First class lounge at Paddington, and the generally pleasant first class environment.
Whilst not ALL staff are as polite or as helpful as one would wish, I feel that on average FGW customer facing staff are better trained and more helpful than those of some other TOCs.

I have been subjected to the odd memorable c*ck up, but not really that many compared to the number of trips.

Not fortunate enough to be able to sample the first class experience, but I generally concur with this view. Much superior to XC  which is the other TOC I use regularly

If I thought the company was useless, I would happily say so.  I've worked for two other TOCs in my time on the railway and I know people aren't going to believe it when I say so, but FGW have honestly got there heads screwed on, it's just a shame they haven't got a reliable infrastructure to run and the full support of the DfT.
The other TOCs I worked for were happy to sit back and just run the franchise meeting the bare minimum requirements set down by the DfT, the only effort they made was to continually cut costs.  We watched as the good parts of the service were slowly axed, the state of the trains declined and morale plummeted. 
I've had former colleagues travel down to visit and they'll tell you my former TOC and FGW are worlds apart. 
Once again, if I thought the company was rubbish I'd happily tell you exactly the reasons why.  The only criticsim I have of FGW is that they could sometimes do with listening to suggestions from staff on the frontline a bit more when it comes to service disruption.

-I think you've just identified a good idea for FGW's next marketing campaign............the "investment" one may quieten down a bit now we know it's going to be at least ^1 billion overspent and a year behind schedule.

Que? Guess you're confusing Network Rail's investment in electrification with a train operators investment in rolling stock & stations?

Not that easy to do on a forum like this one

But FGW have been trumpeting the 'biggest investment since Brunel" or whatever the tagline is, on FGW branded posters/adverts all over London, I think I've seen some in South Wales too - in seeing those advertisements, one could be lead to believe it was FGW funding the investment.

Guess they're confusing Network Rail's investment in electrification with a train operators investment in rolling stock & stations?

Probably the same people that blame FGW for the infrastructure problems too?  ;)

I would expect that anyone who has an ounce of knowledge of the world of our railway franchise system would know that a TOC who at the moment only has an agreement for another 7 months are not investing ^7.5BN over the next few years.  A 10 second google would show that First Group as a whole isn't even worth that.

A savvy TOC would now be putting out posters claiming they're making 'even more investment since Brunel' now it's costing more...  ;)

.............and I wonder who will end up paying for this "extra investment"?

Isn't there a Network Rail logo on those as well as FGWs?

But I take your point. That seems to be tecwsy st least some are interpreting those ads

The 'Building a Greater West' campaign is a joint venture from FGW and Network Rail which is why you will always see a NR logo on a poster that advertises infrastructure improvements.

FGW do use the the BAGW strap line but it is a interim branding to help the transition from FGW to GWR.

FGW have done a lot to improve its customers experience but they can't be blamed for the infrastructure problems they currently have to put up with. (Which probably accounts for the majority of delay tweets.)

I'll be honest... FGW have their clear and obvious faults... I've had journeys on FGW Rails go spectacularly wrong... I've had serious disputes with Frontline Staff over delays when others have passed the buck.

But if I take that in comparison to the amount of journeys I've had and what I've been able to 'get away' with... FGW are darn sight better than most. The cases where I've not been able to get a ticket before travel or at the earliest opportunity have been taken by Gateline Staff and RPIs 99% without hickup.

By 'get away with' I am referring to things like sitting on a train to a terminating station and being allowed to remain onboard for an hour until it goes back again as 1A37... Not things such as Fare Evasion - something I do not and will not ever condone!

If I go to the Buffet Car and show a First Class ticket and ask for a drink. I get one. On CrossCountry I'm sent back to my seat and have to wait for the at seat service which can be 30 minutes before it shows. Rather frustrating if one wants a bottle of water to take some prescription medication ::)

Whereas the treatment I've received from other TOCs has left alot to be desired. Like using an Advance Ticket on the wrong train. I had a couple cases where the toilets on the booked train were all out of order. The journeys in question all longer than 1 hour. I've either got the TM to endorse the ticket where possible or photographed the notice showing out of order. Despite both courses of action I've had some bitter treatment along the lines of "The ticket is for that train only; if it has toilets that is just a bonus"

I completely accept the stance of that and the TM/RPI is well within his rights to enforce that rule. But if it brought a case before court where there was factual medical evidence to support my actions. With a defence that my actions prevented "Soiling the Railway" ... Sorry, but logically I just can't see a TOC winning that case.

Over time I've become on First Name Terms with many FGW staff and have done them favours in many ways which have been recuperated over time. One such case was a very busy and delayed HST where the TM was getting rather flustered at complaints. I suggested I could move to Coach F and they declassify the remaining 2 First Class Carriages. Something that TM has never forgotten and made their day from hell that little bit easier.

Sure things go terribly wrong at times. But my experiences remain at 90ish% positive. It's fair to say I can be the biggest & most annoying ***hole going... But most staff still approve of me and don't pass judgement at my 'thetrout moments' such as taking things too literally, talking to thin air or hogging the bathroom. Such small things can make anxiety almost non existent.

I've also found that through being nice to staff. They are more willing to be nice in return. One staff member in particular will always bring me a hot drink if she catches me on her train. All since I lent her my laptop to google something she'd been bugged by all day.

So all in all. I'm rather satisfied with the service I generally receive. My opinion has varied over the years... But I think FGW are generally much better in most areas than their fellow operators.

But someone less savvy? They'll see the posters (on or near FGW managed stations) and assume that, at the very least, First Great Western are contributing to the capital investment. You and I now that TOCs are a special sort of business that don't do capital investment. Any contribution made to capital investment comes through the fare box. That comes regardless of who the operator is. That's not FGW building for the future. It can't be as First Great Western may not be the future!

As for FGW paying track access charges to Network Rail? Again, that money goes to Network Rail regardless of who the operator is. Also, Network Rail don't divvy up each TOC's track access charges and apportion the money on investment in that TOC's area. One big pot with capital expenditure decided on a national basis for each 5 year Control Period.

To my mind FGW shouldn't have their name associated with the 'Building A Greater West' advertising at all. Zero pounds and zero pence of their own money is being invested.

Incidentally, I have a FGW 'Building A Greater West' ticket wallet. No mention whatsoever of Network Rail on that. If I were to show it to someone less savvy about railway finances (which, less face it, is the vast majority of users of the railways, and general public alike) and ask them what it means, they'd likely reply that it means FGW are investing in improving the rail network.

FGW are just riding on others coat tails.

To be fair, "zero pounds and zero pence of their own money is being invested" isn't strictly true. As an example, look at the number of drivers they have recently recruited, the cost of training a driver (costs ^60k to train a driver according to DB) and the cost of training drivers on the Reading station area and, in the near future, IEP training.  OK, it's not going to cost billions but there it probably adds up to a fair sum.
Plus you could also look at the payments First have made to the DfT to operate the franchise.

At the end of the day though, FGW is a Train Operating Company, and their sole responsibility is just that.... the day to day operating of trains.  They are not there to invest, that is ultimately down to the DfT
When it goes tits up and FGW apportion blame to Network Rail passengers turn around and tell them to "stop blaming someone else, we pay our money to FGW" so based on the that, would shouldn't FGW run the 'Building A Greater West' campaign??  NR or the DfT won't advertise it because they wouldn't gain anything financially by doing so.

I'm only commenting on the specific of infrastructure investment - 'Building A Greater West'. Something FGW seem happy to advertise with their name attached, despite them making no financial contribution to the project. Staff training costs are nothing to do with infrastructure investment.

As for franchise payments to/from the DfT. Over the life of the franchise from 2006 the net flow has been toward the operator in subsidy. That might not have been the case though if FGW hadn't exercised their option to walk away after year 7 of the 10 year franchise. Sound business sense for them to do that of course, particularly as the premium payment profile was backloaded to the final years of the 10 year franchise. Had they continued though FGW may well have made a net contribution to the DfT. It's hard to drill down what the flow of payments has been since March 2013 though. First there was a management contract and then the current direct award. I strongly suspect though that the DfT came off worse in those negotiations. They wanted stability whilst the franchise process was put on hold after the Inter City West Coast debacle. First Group were thus in a strong position with a government not wanting (on ideological grounds rather than sound financial ones) to put the Greater Western franchise into temporary public ownership.

It depends on what you think 'Building A Greater West' actually means.  Staff training and infrastructure investment goes hand in hand.  You can electrify the line and bring in new electric trains but if the TOC doesn't train staff on the new trains, which incidentally takes around 4 weeks per driver (I don't know how long it will take for a TM to learn the IEP). no one is going to see the benefit of electrification.
You can redevelop a major station on the network but if a TOC doesn't train its staff on every single change, we wouldn't be driving through it
If this infrastructure work wasn't being undertaken the company wouldn't have recruited so many new drivers to the point where we are now overstaffed at several locations and with the delay in electrification, it's going to cost FGW more.

Virgin West Coast done exactly the same thing when the West Coast Mainline was upgraded.  Both companies need the new business, the move from HST to IEP represents a huge increase in leasing charges.  What they don't want is another XC where new trains have crippled the business.   

Recruiting/training new staff is Operational Expenditure (OPEX), Infrastructure Investment is Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) ^ clearly the TOC is responsible for one, and NR the other.

I would have expected the winners of an award as prestigious as Rail Business of the Year (or indeed a first year Business studies student) to be able to distinguish between the two, and not disingenuously advertise/suggest that they are picking up the bill for both.

BNM has hit the nail on the head.

I wasn't referring to anyone "less savvy" though.  I was talking about regular forum users here who will full well understand the difference as is the point you've made above (my bolding), hence why I stick by my comment.

According to FGW 'Building a Greater West' does indeed mean more than just infrastructure upgrades and their part is that is to take that opportunity to turn that investment in track, trains and stations, into investment in communities in the regions that they serve.  Such things as expanding the Pullman service, free wifi, new trains, more trains and so on all contribute to the 'Building a Greater West' vision.

Perhaps they can indeed be accused riding on others coat tails by taking the opportunity to splash their logo on anything to do with the ^8bn upgrade when their financial contribution is comparatively small.  Perhaps some will indeed be under the wrong impression that First Group are spending a lot more than they are.  But please don't tell me you wouldn't expect the like of Virgin, DB or any other TOC, (or indeed any other similar company involved in a similar scheme outside of the railway industry) to do any different?  That is the opportunistic world we live in!

I see your point, but TOCs being the public-facing frontman for Network Rail is the way the privatised railway works. FGW is the company that the public engages with; Network Rail is B2B.

I find it hard to see a consistent pattern of FGW diddling Network Rail out of their due credit. A quick glance over at the @FGW Twitter feed suggests a majority of problems right now are infrastructure-related, yet there isn't a single "sorry, not our fault, you'll have to take this up with @NetworkRail". (Heaven knows they must be tempted, especially if they could add DfT to the mix as well. ;) ) FGW is the company accountable to the public for Building A Greater West, whether for credit or blame.

Incorrect, the bulk of the investment is coming from the public purse and is being spent on a publicly owned asset, which FGW have been selected (for the time being) to operate passenger train services on. FGW don't really have any right to take (implied) credit for the investment made by the taxpayers representatives.

In which case, neither should they have to take the flack at all for NR's infrastructure failures or DfTs incompetence....but they do. So I'm adding my name to others giving them so leeway in taking this credit....

I look at it this way.............NR are responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, when it goes wrong, FGW have to manage the fallout and the effect on its customers, similarly, there appears to have been a complete (but predicatable) ballsup over the electrification project, to the tune of ^1billion+ and a 12 month delay.

FGW, on the back of all the promises of investment, have been reassuring customers who cope with cattle truck conditions and chronic delays that new trains/infrastructure will provide more capacity and greater reliability, this is the message trundled out via various media strands, so now that it's costing a great deal more and taking a great deal longer it will be up to FGW to go back to its customers and say ".....sorry folks, we got it wrong" and manage the fallout/dissatisfaction.........I guess that's the "railway family" working in partnership?

I just wish they'd learn that its always best to under promise and overdeliver rather than the other way around!!!

I think you have given me a soundbite I can use in explaining something about the TransWilts  ;D

It will be interesting to see what happens regards them being overbudget.  The upgrade of the WCML went seriously overbudget and as a result part of the project that would have lead to 140mph running was cut to save costs.  I just wonder if something similar will happen on the GWML.

If you wanted to be really cynical, you could look the franchising situation and ask, would the DfT really want to negotiate a new franchise, promising a new operator X, Y and Z when it can not currently guarantee the project being completed in full 

Good point - suspect it will wait until after the election, but coming up with an extra billion (at least) in the context of other demands on the public purse is unlikely to prove popular......I'd love to know who came up with the original costing!

It'll just be added to the deficit....

More importantly, I'd like to know what kind of costing either figure is (as well as basic stuff like whether they are genuine at all).

Unless both have the same status, comparing them is misleading. For example, if the initial costing is nett - "known costs only" with no contingency - it's only ever going to go up, and everyone involved knows it. For example, there might be a contingency for all the electrification schemes, to be allocated after enough work has been done to firm up the figures.

Given how much mischief can be made with such figures, I'm surprised not to see more effort put into making the figures, with attached status, public and easy to find.

Interesting view from some of the comrades;

http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new/news/index.cfm/first-great-western-misleads-passengers-over-who-is-paying-for-investment

Sorry, could you tell me what was actually "incorrect" about my posting?

This ^^

Apologies, perhaps 'I disagree' would've been a better phrase to use as you were expressing a perfectly valid opinion!

I don't think FGW are or can be accountable for Network Rail's spending plans as they are two separate entities. The bulk of the investment, certainly in infrastructure, is coming from NR/public purse, so I cannot see how FGW can imply that they are in some way linked to that other than by the fact they hold a franchise to run trains.

I see no reason why the advertisements shouldn't be reversed to be Network Rail branded, by all means including FGW & First Group logos on there as current franchise holder, but they shouldn't be the dominant branding on the marketing material as that implies the money is coming from them.

In this (very very rare!!) instance, I'm in full agreement with TSSA that the adverts seen around London are misleading.

Yes I quite agree if the dominant branding is FGW and First Group's, without mention of who is spending the money.  I haven't seen the adverts around London, just those like the Brunel one on the following link which make it perfectly clear who is doing the investing from the start (and even on that one I feel that the Network Rail logo should appear at some point):

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/03/26/first-great-western-shows-faces-behind-its-rejuvenation-building-greater-west (http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/03/26/first-great-western-shows-faces-behind-its-rejuvenation-building-greater-west)

Ah, I think we're quibbling over the word "accountable". I wouldn't for a moment suggest that they were accountable financially to Government. But they're accountable to the public for the failings of the infrastructure. When @angrycommuter complains to @FGW of a Monday morning about "All trains delayed, I pay ^5,000 for this s--t, sort it out", he/she isn't interested that it was actually Network Rail's fault for messing up the signalling. FGW is the customer interface, and has to take it on the chin. Like ChrisB says, "they shouldn't have to take the flack at all for NR's infrastructure failures or DfTs incompetence....but they do".

If that makes sense. :)

As a commuter, and tax payer, I believe that the adverts were completely misleading. It riled me so much as I know, unlike most people who see the adverts, that it's not FGW making a multi-billion investment.I complained to the ASA and would encourage others to do so too.

There's no additional gain to FGW from the way the ads are misleading, so the ASA can't do much

No gain!? Now I know FGW are so keen to improve the rail infrastructure I will definitely make sure I use their trains instead of... oh. Oh well, hopefully they don't get added to an ISIS list of targets for their work improving "the West".

Apologies for this post, one of those mornings at work, I will see myself out...

No - no one is going to pay for something they're not going to get....or get something different from what they're expecting to purchae

That is what I was aiming to intimate through the medium of irony. As it happens I agree with you, I will try to keep such outbursts to "the lighter side" in future.

Interesting change of tack from FGW on this subject on their Twitter feed - whereas whenever there were questions along the lines of "when are the improvements coming?" there were soothing noises about massive investment and new trains running in 2017, questions are now re-tweeted to NR with a comment along the lines of "NR can tell you about progress on electrification"...............putting a bit of distance between themselves in view of what appears to be an inevitable lengthy delay/overspend?

I noted this old topic being viewed in my logs - and this post struck me as worth "bumping" and asking "where are we now?"


I'll start - actually, I don't think they're useless / rubbish - but they have allowed themselves to slip back recently, and at a time when external issues such as delayed electrification and so delayed cascades, coupled with new contracts meaning that trains have to be cascaded out, this slippage is noticed two times over.

Living and using a station that's been the fastest growing in England (percentage wise over the last 4 years) but has suffered (I believe) the highest cancellation rate of any GWR station over recent months, the slippage is noticed here 3 times over.

I do not think that GWR are "rubbish" but I feel that they could do a lot better.

As I have said previously, I have considerable misgivings about the design of the new DMUs about to enter service. FGW as they were known at the time, claimed that they had input into the design, so responsibility for mainly short units, for no buffet, and for largely airline seating, must rest largely with FGW, now GWR.

And I find it hard to forgive Mark Hopwood for stating in public that DMUs with underfloor engines were not suited or wanted on inter city routes. So what are we getting ? DMUs with underfloor engines ! great !

GWR have not IMHO responded as well as they should have done to the various network rail failures. Co-operation with bus operators is very lacking, unforgiveable when they are both First group companies.

The Pullman restaurants are the main redeeming feature of GWR in my view, though it remains to be seen how well that will work with the downgrade to DMU operation.

And for the far West routes where it was originally proposed to retain proper inter city trains, another batch of DMUs are on order, "custom designed for longer distances" but still without a buffet.

The DfT will have told Mark H what he could have. He had zero choice, without paying astronomically just to keep you & a few others happy

And boy, you do need to get over that buffet fixation.

Useless/Rubbish are of course highly subjective terms.

If however FGW/GWR were to be considered for Rail Business of the Year in the current climate, it would be against the background of (to name but a few);

-20% of LTV services late
-What must be record numbers of short formed services due to "more trains than usual needing repairs" (the word "usual" implying that this doesn't happen/won't happen for long)
-Weekend travel becoming a lottery across the region depending on whether or not enough drivers/Guards are available, with the same problem increasingly creeping into weekday services
-Genuinely appalling levels of customer service, ongoing for a year now, where customers wait months for replies to basic correspondence, complaints, and compensation.
- Increasing levels of ticket office closure and malfunctioning TVMs
- Self evident lack of management/leadership throughout the whole organisation

.................so if FGW/GWR win it again this year, God knows how bad the competition must be.

Well, they're up against Southern, for example.  :P

Southern are up against ASLEF.

Maybe Least Worst Rail Business of the Year would be a more realistic aspiration? And let customers have a say in who "wins".