Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 07:35 30 Apr 2024
* BBC onboard Philippine ship hit by Chinese water cannons
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 22/05/24 - WWRUG / TransWilts update
02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
30th Apr (1972)
Brighton Belle withdrawn (link)

Train RunningCancelled
07:31 London Paddington to Cheltenham Spa
Short Run
07:12 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
07:27 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
09:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
PollsThere are no open or recent polls
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
April 30, 2024, 07:43:55 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[120] Where was I today, 29.04.24?
[90] Clan Line - by Clan Line !
[77] South Western Railways Waterloo - Bristol services axed
[76] Saturdays: Rochdale / Manchester onto the Settle and Carlisle
[56] Broadgage unwell.
[49] Newcomers start here ... and a reference for older hands
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Letter from Network Rail to FGW  (Read 10716 times)
TerminalJunkie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 919



View Profile
« on: November 28, 2007, 16:18:58 »

Network Rail have written to FGW (First Great Western) about the impending introduction of Pacers in Devon (Link to original document)

In the letter, they refer to damage to the track:
Quote from: Network Rail
Network Rail considers that in relation to the proposed Vehicle Change Network Rail should be entitled to compensation (as defined in Condition F3.2) from FGW for the consequences of the implementation of the change. Class 142 vehicles were previously removed from, what is now, the Western Route due to the high level of damage the vehicles caused to the track - an issue that was highlighted to the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) during the franchise process. In order to mitigate the risks associated with this damage Network Rail wishes to implement the recommendations of the relevant standard (NR» (Network Rail - home page)/SP/TRK/8006) and pass on to FGW the one-off costs incurred as a result.

They also ask for some compensation:
Quote from: Network Rail
To the extent that the information provided in the FGW^s proposal for Vehicle Change (issued under Condition F2) has enabled Network Rail to assess the likely effect of the proposed change, a statement of the amount of compensation required (calculated in accordance with the requirements of Condition F3) and the means by which the compensation should be paid is shown in Appendix A to this letter. The details of these costs were initially provided as part of the Preliminary Response (22 October 2007) and an updated copy is supplied as an Excel spreadsheet at Appendix B.

Pacers apparently squeal a bit:
Quote from: Network Rail
Class 142 vehicles are also notorious for causing squealing noises on curves which lead to complaints from the public and their representatives. As part of this Vehicle Change Network Rail requires FGW to be accountable for the costs and conscientious processing of any such complaints generated by the operation of these vehicles.

They also carry a higher risk of collision than rolling stock they replace:
Quote from: Network Rail
Finally, Class 142 vehicles have historically been prone to incidents of low adhesion. This is attributed to the axle configuration rather than any railhead condition. As part of this Vehicle Change Network Rail requires FGW to take steps to mitigate against such incidents and be responsible for any failure to do so.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 18:20:13 by TerminalJunkie » Logged

Daily Mail and Daily Express readers please click here.
devon_metro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5175



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2007, 16:58:39 »

In short.

"You toss*rs!"
Logged
TerminalJunkie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 919



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2007, 18:28:05 »

Quote from: Network Rail
In order to mitigate the risks associated with this damage Network Rail wishes to implement the recommendations of the relevant standard (NR» (Network Rail - home page)/SP/TRK/8006) and pass on to FGW (First Great Western) the one-off costs incurred as a result.

For information, this standard relates to the siting, installation, and operation of remote rail lubricators.
Logged

Daily Mail and Daily Express readers please click here.
Conner
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1041


08436 at Corfe Castle on the Swanage Railway


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2007, 07:54:15 »

The government control what stock we get so why don't they write to them complaining.
Logged
Westernchallenger
Full Member
***
Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2007, 16:26:39 »

The operator bids for the stock it intends to use on the franchise. Clearly FGW (First Great Western) always intended to re-introduce pacers
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2007, 16:33:13 »

The operator bids for the stock it intends to use on the franchise. Clearly FGW (First Great Western) always intended to re-introduce pacers

Can you elaborate on this process please , Westernchallenger?

Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Westernchallenger
Full Member
***
Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2007, 16:36:04 »

When an operator compiles its bid, it needs to indicate to DfT» (Department for Transport - about) what rolling stock it intends to use. Therefore it follows that FGW (First Great Western) must have declared the use of pacers in its bid
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2007, 16:48:42 »

When an operator compiles its bid, it needs to indicate to DfT» (Department for Transport - about) what rolling stock it intends to use. Therefore it follows that FGW (First Great Western) must have declared the use of pacers in its bid

The franchise agreement is a "live" document though , which means that it can be altered at any point  , and several changes have been made to it already , including to the Train Fleet section.

What would interest me would be if concrete proof existed that FGW intended to use the Class 142's all along.
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Westernchallenger
Full Member
***
Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2007, 16:52:15 »

I see what you mean. Well the answer to that will be commercially confidential to FGW (First Great Western)
Logged
Westernchallenger
Full Member
***
Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2007, 17:01:52 »

But it looks like your answer is provided in the quote from the NR» (Network Rail - home page) letter above.
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2007, 17:06:07 »

There were rumours that the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) forced the leasing companies into offering rock - bottom rates for Pacers , which would then be used on the West Country routes / branch lines.

Only rumours , though.
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Conner
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1041


08436 at Corfe Castle on the Swanage Railway


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2007, 09:59:31 »

FGW (First Great Western) always say that the 142's were a last resort but they under-estimated the amount of stock they needed so didn't bother renewing the lease on the 158's so Northern got them and then FGW realised they needed more stock so they had to get the 142's because they couldn't keep the 158's.
Logged
Timmer
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6299


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2007, 13:21:01 »

FGW (First Great Western) always say that the 142's were a last resort but they under-estimated the amount of stock they needed so didn't bother renewing the lease on the 158's so Northern got them and then FGW realised they needed more stock so they had to get the 142's because they couldn't keep the 158's.
So FGW only have themselves to blame on this one then and its not DaFT» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) forcing them to give the stock up?
Logged
TerminalJunkie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 919



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2007, 13:31:16 »

Quote from: Timmer
So FGW (First Great Western) only have themselves to blame on this one then and its not DaFT» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) forcing them to give the stock up?

John Curley pretty much admitted that at the NDRUG (North Devon Rail Users Group) AGM (Annual General Meeting):

He also said that they [...] made mistakes predicting the amount of rolling stock they would need, and failed to acquire replacements when they realised the mistake.
Logged

Daily Mail and Daily Express readers please click here.
Timmer
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6299


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2007, 18:31:14 »

Quote from: Timmer
So FGW (First Great Western) only have themselves to blame on this one then and its not DaFT» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) forcing them to give the stock up?

John Curley pretty much admitted that at the NDRUG (North Devon Rail Users Group) AGM (Annual General Meeting):

He also said that they [...] made mistakes predicting the amount of rolling stock they would need, and failed to acquire replacements when they realised the mistake.
Whoops!
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page