Great Western Coffee Shop

From the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/13/transport (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/13/transport)

"...In a warning that the government has put too much strain on the rail network, the operator has asked to renegotiate the terms of its ^1.1bn contract. It wants to reduce payments so it can buy more carriages and has warned it is overspending in order to accommodate commuters."

It should be noted that the Guardian article is referring to a presentation which FGW made to the DfT in May 2008, which was around the time that 3-coach Portsmouth-Cardiff trains were introduced as part of the Remedial Plan.

In some respects, its not surprising that such issues were being discussed at that time.

 

Excellent news, First related franchises always seem to bring new stock.

FGE - Class 360 desiros
FTPE - Class 185 Desiros
FNW - Class 175
FGW - Class 180

Hopefully a 3 coach commuter dmu derived from London Overgrounds brand new class 378s can be produced. (http://upmain.fotopic.net/p53614372.html)

Perhaps removing the pacers from our rails!

In what way has the "government put too much strain on the network"? 

The increase in demand was predicted, if FGW didn't see it coming or ignored it then why should the Government bail them out?

it is emiently sensible for FGW to pay less of their income to the governemnt and use it to buy new trains instead, but if they want to pay less of a premium to the Governemnt then they shouldn't have entered the bid that they did.  They made their beds and they can lie in it.

As for the overspend to accomodate commuters they ought to have predicted that commuters would not let them get away with the rubbish service they provided a year ago.  Despite the "overspend" they are still making a profit so I can't feel sorry for them in the slightest.

the trains are not overcrowded in the governments view until pasengers have to sit on the roof which they deem slightly unsafe only on electrified routes

 Tim.....why are FGW any different than  the big banks the government have decided to bail them out so why not a renegotiated bid to bring new rolling stock in for say Pompy/Cardiff and redistribute some of the 158s back to Exeter
your post is rather negative and puts forward nothing to improve conditions for rail travellers in FGW area.
Where by additional new unit stock would increase capacity provide better trains and prehaps allow FGW to run more trains

All TOCs as a whole (+ the gov) need to bank together and slap a HUGE order onto the current Class 172 order, trains which can continuously be built and rolled out for the next ten years. This would replace all Pacers and Sprinters (minus 158s), and have extra left over.

It would be relatively cheap, as it would be a rolling line. The un air conned trains/ buses can then be scrapped. ;D

We need to stop these small orders, and have one big one, so all new trains are of a standard design everywhere. Otherwise, by the time the West Fleet is sorted, the Thames Turbos will die and the whole long and expensive process will start again (with overcrowding in the meantime).

Better still why not 372s put the wires and do away with the diesels as far as possible.

But don't forget it's not in a Tocs interests to own any rolling stock as they might not get a renewed franchise and they would be dependant on the new TOC taking on the stock or renting it to someone else. If all their rivals have also bought new stock there may not be a market.

Also there is absolutely no risk in being a TOC you have no real assets only staff and rental costs which are paid from the fare box. If the fare is not big enough you stop paying pemiums and the government takes the franchise away. Who remembers GNER? The trains will still run for under BR like South Eastern until the franchise is relet to buggins. Most staff will have worked for several TOCs since privatisation even if they are doing exactly the same job they were doing in BR days.

We must keep asking the Wolmar question "What are TOCS for?"

After several years of asking he still doesn't seemed to have been given a satisfactory answer.

Even before the current financial meltdown, the leasing companies and the banks were reported to be increasingly reluctant to pay for any substantial build of new diesel rolling stock, because they didn't want to get landed with a lot of trains that might be overtaken by any extension of electrification and which no-one wanted to use as a result.

Given that rolling stock typically has a working life of 25-30 years, you can't blame them for caution, especially after the very positive things Ruth Kelly was saying about electrification before she left office. The Labour Party conference was told "Labour will develop options for a rolling programme of electrification of our railways ^ potentially the largest programme of electrification in our history."

If, for example, Transpennine Express routes are wired - which would be eminently sensible, given the connection between the East and West Coast routes this would provide, plus the performance benefits of electric power climbing through the hills - the Class 185 fleet (and some 170s) would be looking for a new home, with many years of life left in them, so would you want to pay for lots of 172s with that prospect looming?

True. But I was taking the pessimistic view that the electrification idea will not come to fruition - at least not for many years!

But more carriages are needed NOW.

At this rate, the HSTs will be retired by IEP, and then bought up by TOCs for branch line work!

The Conservatives are planning to increase the length of rail franchises to between 15 and 20 years, the idea being that train operators use the revenues generated by the longer contracts to buy their own carriages and to fund infrastructure improvements (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/10/tory_plan_to_cut_network_rails.html#more

Train operators would also be invited to bid against Network Rail for engineering tasks. However, they would be barred from bidding for large-scale engineering work such as the ^8.6bn west coast main line upgrade. Instead, they would be allowed to bid against Network Rail for public funds for smaller tasks such as platform lengthening, station improvements and signalling upgrades.

The proposals are expected to form part of a rail review to be published before Christmas.

Further fragmentation is the last thing the industry needs.  Under the Tory proposals, we could see a slimmed down NR entirely dedicated to large infrastructure work, whilst services like signalling and emergency response are hived off elsewhere?

On the other hand, perhaps this presages the first move in a return to the inter-war years style of railway grouping with all services ultimately brought back in house? Is the hitherto anathema of re-nationalisation a distant gleam in Mr Cameron's eye?

Article quote :


This Christian Wolmar piece argues that events could provide an opportunity to renationalise the railways (link below.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/13/transport-railtravel

I don't like the idea of the Government bailing out the banks either, but the difference is that First going bust and being replaced will not cause decades of damage to the international economy.

I would support the Government spending money on the network to improve capacity, but you must remember that First is a private company and profit comes first (nothing wrong with that).  Ifyou give FGW more money they will give it to their shareholders unless they are contractually prevented from doing so.  It is would be wrong to give FGW extra money to enable them to merely meet their franchise commitments which they freely entered into and which they must be held to.  I do think that it is not unreasonable to enforce all contracts which have been freely entered into and the FGW franchsie is such a document.  If you buy a car for ^10,000 and you wouldn't entertain the dealer demanding an extra ^1,000 on delivery because his costs have gone up.  the cost-rise would be his problem not yours.   That is how contracts work.  In exchange for money (either a direct subsidy or via the farebox) the risk, cost and problems of running the railway are transfered to a private company.  If FGW was unable to meet its franchise conditions and needed more cash to do so that that is firmly a FGW problem not a tax-payer problem

I think you need to draw a distinction between bailing FGW and investing extra money (perhaps channeled via FGW) to improve capacity.

I am negative about the first option only and positive about the second. 

One problem with this discussion is that because of "commercial confidentiality" we don't really know whether FGW were in fact in breach of their franchise a year or two ago.  As I recall a newspaper suggested that they were and FGW threatened to sue them (but didn't).  I suspect that they were in some sort of difficultly because Kelly was able to ring some improvements out of them, but we are all really in the dark on the issue.

I think of a contract, whether it is as complicated as a franchise agreement or as simple as a ticket to travel, as a two-way promise and I do think that people and companies should keep theirpromises whethever possible and be punished for breaking them.   

To put it simply, the Government were naive/stupid to under-specify the franchise so badly, and First Group were stupid/naive to overbid for it to such an extent. Their bid far outnumbered those from the other preferred bidders, so there's no surprise that a greedy government accepted it without a second thought! It should be too late for FGW to cry about it now.

I don't really think that arguement should stand when it comes to running a public service!

I'm reminded of the time that TV-AM lost the franchise to run breakfast television to GMTV, who bid over the odds. About a year late GMTV went back tail between their legs, said they couldn't afford to run the franchise, and (bizarrely in my view) were successful in having it renegotiated. How would you feel if you were part of the TVAM bid (or a shareholder)?

It's the same with rail franchises, except of course the public service interest is a bit more significant than keeping Roland Rat on air.

   

Certainly in terms of the numbers of units that were in service in the area and their actual capability in terms of day to day operation it seems NX and the Wessex franchise were nearer the mark than the DFT / FGW agreed franchise specification.

Both DFT and FGW got the West unit provision wrong. Now perhaps is the time to revisit the subject in the light of experience gained and add capacity (in the form of class 172) rather than merely blaming whoever was ulitmately responsible. If the 172 is ordered by a lot of TOC's there is economy of scale to be had and it will protect jobs at the builder which is of itself no small consideration in these financially tight times.

Well said!

Further related links.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/Threatened-train-firm-wants-better-deal/article-397649-detail/article.html

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2008/10/renationalisation.html

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2008/10/pips-squeeking.html

I've sympathy with that view and I understand that you take it because the passenger ought to come first which I agree with, but if you are going to allow the franchise to be renegotiated because FGW/DFT made a mistake or because circumstances have changed, then I have to ask you the question, "what is a franchise for?".

If the franchise system is to transfer the risk of running a public service to the private sector then that risk ought to stay with the private sector.  If the franchise can be renegoted at will then the risk hasn't really been transfered and it stays with the public sector.  All you have done is privatise the profit when times are good but kept the loses with the taxpayer when times are bad.  As a taxpayer I object to this. 

If the risk stays with the public sector then it would be much better to have the ownership in the public sector too, or to have FGW as a mere contractor rather than a franchisee (like they are with London buses). 

It is not as if the franchise system even brings private investment into the railways.  First only hold the franchise for 7 years so they don't put any serious investment into the railways - ask yourself what does First actually own and you will find that it is very little - no infracstructure or stock, just things like staff uniforms and computers etc which have a short lifespan anyway).  the serious investment comes from NR which is in the public sector in all but name and the ROSCOs (who charge huge lease-fees to cover their risks).  So franchising doesn't bring huge private investment into the railway.  Compare this with the freight companies who are not franchsied and who have invested hugely buying new wagons and hundreds of class 66s which BR would never have been able to afford.

To my mind you either believe in capitalism and leave the railway completely (loses, profits, investments and risk - the whole lot) to the private sector - with taxpayer subsidy on routes and services where it can be justified - or you believe in state ownership and control and recreate BR (perhaps with some functions which are not core to a railway company contracted out, for example catering, cleaning, laudry, ticket machines etc).   I am happy to argue over which system is better, but the current situation is the worst of both worlds because the taxpayer takes all the risk but the private company takes all the profit and when the profit runs out it hands back the keys like GNER did.

The point of about GM-TV is a very good one.  If word gets around that franchises can be renegotiated at will what is to stop First bidding for every franchise with the promise of paying a billion-billion pound premium to the treasury and then renegotation more favourable terms after it has won the contract. 

There is also a moral argument - FGW made a promise in its bid and it is imorral for people or companies to break their promises is it not?  Just as it is imoral to enter into a contact for travel and then refuse to pay your fare.  I view FGW's attempt to renegotiate its contract with the same contempt as I view some sumbag trying to dodge their fare.  its all abot trying to argue your way out of your responsibilities.

Public service arguments should come first and I have no problem with the taxpayer subsidising the railway (as they subsidise every other mode of transport) but it is also important that the taxpayer is robbed blind to do this. 

I agree with your very well argued point Tim, provided that what FGW are asking for is a more favourable deal. If however there was a reasonable agreement for them to pay less for the franchise, in return for a proportional increase in the minimum service requirements -- to take account of both overcrowding and unacceptable gaps in services from certain stations -- then I would be all in favour.

I personnaly think that they should admit defeat, and allow the FGW franchise to replace almost all, if not all, of its 150s and Pacers with 172s. allowing the 150s to be cascaded to ATW to replace their pacers. 

Good plan.

And NOW is the time to get cheaper rolling stock quickly due to the LM order.

Let's face it: its going to be decades before the GWML core is electrified, let alone any other "West" and Wales routes. DMU are needed, and the Pacers/ Sprinters need to go!

The decision to turn BR from state monopoly to a fragmented franchise was an invitation from the government to independent franchises to take a financial bet on the cost of providing the service.

It is clear the FGW won the bid by underplaying the service requirements and optimising the franchise payment to the government. Whilst it may now realise it got it wrong and want the government to change the terms. This is tough, they wouldn't be complaining if they where making huge profits, would they?

FGW should provide the extra train capacity as needed, or forfeit the franchise and it's right to hold other franchises!

Er, no. FGW won by bidding an unrealistically high amount of money against exactly the same service requirements - set by the DafT - as the other groups bidding. That there were going to be problems ahead with rolling stock being cut should have been obvious to all concerned. We all know the results.

As has been said before in other threads, it really wouldn't make any difference if First were stripped of the franchise. Were National Express or Stagecoach to step in, they would face exactly the same problems Andrew Haines has been wrestling with for the past year and would probably come to the same conclusions. And to get either of them to take over, the Government would have to renegotiate the terms, probably rather more drastically than anything First has been asking for.

And would you really want Stagecoach, who got rid of the Class 442 express units and put suburban Class 450 emus on the Portsmouth-London line in place of the 444s, which were moved to replace the 442s on the Bournemouth route? Or NX, who have had a rocky ride on the East Coast since replacing GNER?

And can we please forget this Class 172 fantasy. The 150s have all got another decade of life in them, so get used to them being around until the end of the FGW franchise. As I said earlier, the lifespan of trains means no-one is going to pay for new DMUs that no-one will want if the wires go up and the noises the Government has been making suggest that they are serious about this - not before time -  so no bank will cough up for a big DMU order until the picture becomes clearer. Especially when their whole approach to lending is going to be under close scrutiny, with every decision having to be justified to the nth degree. Not being sure whether someone will want to lease your trains in 10 years' time won't convince anyone to sign off such a loan.

I agree with Willc's remarks there 100%.

Willc is right.

Also, the government can't strip FGW of its franchise because its performance is within the limits set by the franchise.  The problems caused by lack of stock are not a franchise breach because, rightly or wrongly, they are allowed by the terms of the franchise.  For the Government to end FGWs franchise without a breach by FGW would be wrong and illegal.  The outcome would probably be the government paying damages to FGW and/or other franchises being let on less favourable terms to the taxpayer as the operators try and price the risk of the government treating them as badly.

If FGW left the franchise and say National Express took over, the quality of service would, I reckon be fairly similar UNLESS the franchise agreement was amended to for example increase service and stock levels.  But if the Government want to change the terms, I am sure that FGW would let them do that within the existing franchsise providing that they were adequately paid for it.  That is the rub, any improvement to the franchise sepcification will need more government money regardless of who the operator is.  Changing the franchisee is just a red herring.

Now, a year or so ago when the current franchise started, things were possibly a bit different.  It was said by some that First were in breach of the franchise although they denied it.  If anyone on this forum knows the truth as to whether or not FGW was in breach I expect that they will be keeping it a secret.  Such matters are hiden behind "commercial confidentiality clauses" which I think is discraceful seeing as we are talking about a publc service and public money.   My guess is that it was a close run thing and depending on how you did the performance stats, and perhaps how much blame could be shifted to NR, you could have found a breach or not. 

However, they were, in the view of Government,  in breach over acidentally misreporting/fiddling their preformance statistics which rather neatly avoided the issue of having to decide if there was a breach on the grounds of poor train performance. and the Government issued a "Breach Notice" to them.  The Government chose not to fire FGW, I expect because they knew that they were unlikely to get such favourable financial terms out of another operator,  but they did manage to get First to commit to an improvement plan which included First investing a bit of their own money.  I expect First would not have argeed to do this if they were not at least slightly worried about loosing the franchise. 

At the time of the "troubles", I was strongly in favour of First loosing its franchise or being punished in some other way if it had breached the agreement, if only pour encourager les autres.  I suspect (but do not know) that the Government might have been in a position to fine FGW for its performance.  What actually appears to have happened is that Kelly decided that the "fine" should be spent on improvements rather than just going into the treasury coffers, so she forced FGW to spend some of its own money on investment in an improvement plan, which appears to have been fairly sucessful.  That action was to Ruth Kelly's credit and contrasts with the fines NR paid for engineering overrun mess-ups which went into the Chancellor's back pocket and were lost from the railway.

But that is all now ancient history...

Aye up Tim. I think your a bit behind the times the First Greater Western franchise started on 1st April 2006 (2 1/2 years ago)
http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=94 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=94)

Even if both FGW and ATW and Northern could get rid of the pacers, by replacing with 172s, it would be a bonus.  I dont want the 150s to be wasted.

Also, remember that the first group do indeed own some of their HST train sets, so if they lsot their franchise, they would take those units with them, so thing would be even more tight on the GW franchise. 

How is the 172 idea a fantasy?

I would call the idea that a lot of DMU routes will be electric within the next decades a fantasy!

Obviously, the Sprinters would be cascaded elsewhere, but they are clapped out.

They can no longer do the Lickely Incline, they struggle at Old Hill in B'ham. Some are so clapped out, they can't exceed 50 - 60 mph.

We need to look at scrapping them. Adding an extra bulk load of 172s would be the cheapest way of getting new stock to relieve overcrowding and release 153s etc for Transwilts and Walsall.

Yes, the 150s are feeling the strain of being hammered up and down on arduous commuter duties around the West Midlands for 20 years. That doesn't mean to say that with a proper refresh and mechanical overhaul that they can't be made good for another decade of less stressful work, such as West Country branches, or Bristol commuter services - no Lickey inclines there - which is exactly what is proposed for them. And how often do they need to exceed 60mph anyway in the West Midlands?

The fact is that the Government and Network Rail are both serious about electrification - where the oil price went earlier this year has made sure of that. Yes, it takes time to get wires up, but once you commit to a new diesel fleet, you are stuck with it - the current build of 172s will be expected to run until something like 2040! What will oil cost then?

Once you electrify the main lines, which means you have to do the complex, expensive bits like major stations and junctions, then doing other routes is a much more economic proposition. If the GMWL were electrified into Devon, then wiring the Torbay and Exmouth branches would be a no-brainer, and so on. So your need for dmus starts to go down fast. The same sort of process would happen in the North if the Trans Pennine Express lines were wired, as they connect with so many other routes.

The BR 15X-series DMUs and the Turbos will be reaching the end of the line between about 2015 and 2025, which gives time to start wiring and then bring in new electric trains to replace them. Start building a vast fleet of 172s now and they would be just 10 years old with many years' life left in them, but nothing to do.

And you still haven't said how you might pay for all these 'cheap' 172s.

Fears are being expressed over National Express East Coast's ability to meet its franchise premium payments commitment (link below.)
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/10/16/downturn-could-derail-east-coast-train-service-61634-22045613/

Hmmm, I don't think NXEC will be the only ones finding it a challenge to meet their premium payment commitments over the next few years.

Fair enough, but I am not convinced that the gov is really hooked on electrification. An announcement is not enough.

I agree with what you say. I would rather a rolling electrification programme. But would the wires be up in time?

Between Kidderminster and Worcester, line speed is mostly 75 mph with stops 9-10 mins apart.

True about paying. But the wires will have to be paid for as well!

Let's hope for electrification.

I wouldn't dispute you can get up some speed on the Worcester-Kidderminster section, but almost all the other routes out of Snow Hill have the stations close together, so good acceleration is really what you need, not necessarily a high top speed - another argument for electrification, of course...

And given where DafT stood on electrification only last year - hated the very idea - they have done a pretty sharp U-turn, which is why Kelly's conference speech was hopefully rather more than just a good soundbite.

That might be the trouble, all it would take is another u-turn back in the favour of new methods of train propulsion - somehow tapping into the vast amount of hot air that comes out of MP's mouths perhaps? On a serious note though, I do believe (and hope) that electrification IS very much on the agenda.

At the TravelWatch SouthWest meeting in Taunton, two weeks ago, Dave Ward of Network Rail spoke very positively about the future of electrification using overhead wires.

Apparently, the recent turmoil in the fossil fuel market, with prices of diesel soaring, has indeed brought about a fundamental change of heart in the DfT.  Dave's comments, in response to further questioning, were that it is becoming 'increasingly more possible' that the future, westwards, will involve electrification.  The rebuilding at Reading includes inherent provision for Crossrail / electrification to be extended westwards: just how far (for example, 'to Minehead rather than Maidenhead', as one questioner phrased it, rather mischievously!) remains to be seen.

Dave Ward's view was that anything is possible - although he warned that we are necessarily looking in terms of 'generations' - not just his, but his childrens.  However, anything is possible: Bristol is apparently fairly easy (albeit expensive!) to achieve, if the will is there.  West of Bristol, it's less clear: however, Dave was quite specific that the Severn Tunnel could be electrified, so further development westwards towards Plymouth and / or Cardiff are not ruled out.

(My apologies if I'm paraphrasing Dave Ward's actual points - I'm writing from memory, and scribbled notes, but grahame and Ollie were also there, so they can perhaps put me straight, if I have got my wires crossed!).

National Express East Coast is expected to give an upbeat view of its prospects in Thursday's trading update (link below.)
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-and-markets/article.html?in_article_id=455775&in_page_id=3

Poor old First Group, like I've said many times on this forum, First just didn't do their Homework before putting up a Massive Bid for the Greater Western Franchise, was it or was it not that First Group's Bid was about 5 times the ^200m bid of National Express.

If First want New terms then the franchise (and all other First group rail franchise's) should be reopened to all would be operators.

Something that they are over spending on is a shortage of Train Crew, with crews being almost able to state their OWN terms of payments to work overtime, to prevent FGW cancelling Trains due to Staff shortages.

Of course then theres contractors Like ISS brought in to DO WORK that was done by FGW's own staff before, Saving Money? you got to be joking!!!!!!

Don't know. Was it. When did become privvy to the financial details of these bids?


This isn't happening anymore. It's true that some of us traincrew have made a little money out of the predicament that FGW had found themselves in, however paying the traincrew the extra money was still cheaper than any costs incurred from cancellation penalties etc. ( can i just add that I never held any resourcing managers to a ransom when being asked to do extra)

Maybe you didn't, but many did. October/November is always a good month in terms of driver resources - not many drivers are on holiday. Expect there to be one final round of enforced company generocity and greedy drivers taking advantage of it during December, before, hopefully, enough trainee's are passed out in time for next summer squeeze on resources.

I for one hope FGW are feeling generous. Those of us who endured last December are praying there won't be a repeat of that shambles.

Wolverhampton South West MP Rob Marris has challenged Geoff Hoon in the Commons to renationalise the railways (link below.)
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-transport-news/2008/10/23/wolverhampton-mp-calls-for-nationalisation-of-railways-65233-22100633/

The only problem being that at least two trainee drivers have recently been passed out on the wrong type of rolling stock.....
 ::) ::) ::)

is it impossible to build diesel units that also run on electric wires or 3rd rail

No, but it's expensive and inefficient. One of the (many) advantages of electric traction is that you aren't carrying all the weight of the engines around with you. But obviously you are if you build a hybrid unit.  And when running on diesel you've got the electric traction kit weight to pull as well. And of course it costs more to build the unit in the first place, and try and fit everything in.

So its not practical on a multiple unit, though 3rd rail locomotives had small diesel engines included to enable them to work away from the current, typically in sidings where it wouldn't be a terribly good idea to have third rail. 

   

See link below.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22122346-a19b-11dd-a32f-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

already been done. The Class 73 can operate from a 750 V DC third-rail supply but also have a diesel engine to allow them to operate on non-electrified routes.

Good to hear for the 73s, their Diesel engine although only 600hp  was a similar design of English Electric unit as the Thumpers.

However, although not fast on diesel I've seen them pull the Sussex Scot from Clapham to Reading on diesel and push a Cross Country complete with 47 on the front from Basingstoke to Reading.

But to get back tio the thread. FGW bid for the franchise, so tough, it was their decision to bid so they have to live with it. I thought that's what capitalism was all about, you take a risk you succeed or fail.

but the way i understand it is that if fgw makes a profit and chooses to purchase rolling stock to ease over crowding they cant?

And sod the passengers for the next 7 years? If a franchise clearly isn't working then it's in our interests that it's renegotiated.

I'm afraid that the whole franchising system contains an elements of that, where it encourages maximisation of return to the Treasury and the shareholders of private companies, with the hurdle that's to be reached being a contracted service level committment which is often ill thought out and doesn't allow for the future / changing circumstances and the ability (desirability) to grow traffic.


Provided that the re-negotiation provides a better service level commitment, then there could be something to be said for that.  But if it's just to provide more money to the company that took the commercial risk, or to tax them less (via the franchise payment, for that is a stealth tax on travel) then I have serious misgivings.

Some of the current discussions strike me as odd ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've seen it stated that First are looking for more money because they're having more passengers travel than were planned?   Doesn't a business benefit disproportionately from an increase in business - in other words, if I had (say) 30% more training course bookings than I had planned, wouldn't I be able to do a better job and more efficient job ... and if my delegates were paying me, surely I would not have to raise my prices ?

Yes but think of it this way.  Your training course runs 90% full.  If you take on another 20% of business then you would have a problem because you would not be able to accomodate them ! So you would hire new rooms etc.  However this would not make commercial sense as you would now be making a loss on the as the second course would only run 10% full.

I think this is what FGW are saying.  The local service that they want to increase dont actually make money.  They are subsidised by the inter city trains.  When the XC and SWT cuts take place  there will be large gaps in the service.  FGW is not contracted to fill these gaps.  So they are saying to the government that if you want them to fill the gaps more subsidy will be needed.  After all why should FGW provide the extra services.  Why not XC or SWT?

So the cuts will go ahead and there will be nothing else to replace them unless the government wishes to provide more subsidy.  Bit like the Melksham situation where a good service was cut because the government would not provide the necessary subsidy.

My point was to renegotiate if it gives a more acceptable service to passengers. If it's simply to line the coffers of the company that screwed up their bid then I agree it shouldn't happen.

I think we're on the same wavelength, then John ... but there is the need to most careful to ensure that changes are more acceptable to passengers (and people who want to be passengers, but cannot be at the moment) rather than less acceptable. I'm afraid that I don't trust the decision makers on either side to put the travelling public first in such decisions, based on things like experience of SLC changes that have been made since the franchise was awarded which have significantly worsened the provision ... and I see no consultation or truely independent and meaningful mechanisms in place that would police a renegotiation.

Super-tm.   Thanks for your comments and there is much in what you say. I fully appreciate that proving more lossmaking services could, in some circumastances, lead to a bigger loss. But there are countercomments to some elements.

I can recall the stage where we moved up from 2 to 3 full time employees at our place - and what a huge step that was, and there were big extra investments needed.  But now that we're a little larger, it's not such a meteoric change to upside and downsize, and courses (like trains) can be modestly increased in frequency and don't always have to be doubled once you have the extra volume.   We're still pretty small; FGW run (what) around 750 carriages, so they have good granularity for change. 

A town like Trowbridge, population around 28,000, is served by 5 trains an hour on average, and I would call that a good schedule (even though may of up have been denied boarding there because of insufficient capacity).  But I think you're stretching it a bit to describe a service of 1 train every 2 hours - a tenth of that of Trowbridge - for a town three quarters of the size as "Good". That's what the former Melksham service was. However - it was close to the best service that could be offered with the resources of a single train, and indeed I heartily commend the draft timetable (that, alas, is not happening from this December) of six round trips on the TransWilts as again being close to the best that can be done with a single train. Sorry to appear to pick you up on this, but as written you could be suggesting that Trowbridge be cut back to a service every 3 hours to Bristol and every 3 hours to Portsmouth, and that you would consider that to be a good service  ;D

There's no easy answer here and there will be shades of grey ... I just wish there was an effective traveller's voice and that the traveller had at least equal consideration at the negotiating table.

Yes to  a point perhaps, but local services earn a high level of subsidy from Government, which is presumably what made the Wessex Trains franchise so  attractive to FGW.

The local services do attract subsidy but only as part of the overall franchise.  Say the subsidy is 80p per local passenger carried.  If First carries an extra 100 local passengers, it doesn't get ^80 extra from the government.  It is the service specified in the franchise spec that is subsidised not individual passenger journeys.   In some ways it would make sense for the subsidy to follow the passenger, but no doubt such a method of applying a subsidy would also be problematic

Thanks for the info Tim. I  probably shouldn't be saying this, but just what motive, apart from increased revenue, can FGW have to provide longer trains if they are not subsidised per additional passenger?  The cost of a hybrid 158 for example, could well outweigh the benefits in revenue.

Probably does G.Uard, but FGW were under a lot of pressure from their passengers and DaFT so they had to do something and bringing back 3 car 158s was probably the best solution. Also good PR for First to have done this and let everyone know how much its costing them. Goodness knows what will happen if they revert back to running two car 158s again. A case of lighting the blue touch paper and standing well back!