Spot the error...

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

A scan of the frontispiece from the latest FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Network Timetable which landed on my doormat today. (Thanks to Jo at FGW Facebook for sending me one after numerous failed attempts at purchasing one from Bristol Temple Meads)



What's the error?

[rogerw]

No HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) have 7 standard class coaches

[JayMac]

No HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) have 7 standard class coaches

Indeed. Someone should have proof read that statement. Unless FGW^▸ (First Great Western) plan to have a fleet of HSTs with Standard Class only, or plan to declassify 1st...... 

[TerminalJunkie]

No HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) have 7 standard class coaches

That doesn't make the statement untrue, though.

Someone should have proof read that statement.

I'm probably going to regret this*, but ITYM "proof-read".


* Nah, not really!

[JayMac]

I always look forward to your deconstruction of, and comment on, grammatical errors, TJ. But flagging up the lack of a hyphen is scraping the barrel. Even for you. 

[EBrown]

"proof-read"

Oh dear Terminal Junkie, OED^▸ (Oxford English Dictionary) disagrees; proof-read is a derivative of the original American word, proofread:

proofread, v
Pronunciation:  Brit.    /ˈpruːfriːd/ , U.S. /ˈprufˌrid/
Inflections:  Past tense and past participle proofread.
Etymology:  < proof n. + read v., after proofreader n., proofreading n.

1. trans. To read (text, esp. in proof) in order to find and mark errors for correction. Also intr.

Derivatives

  ˈproof-read adj.

I'll go now...

[TerminalJunkie]

But flagging up the lack of a hyphen is scraping the barrel. Even for you. 

I intend to leave no barrel unscraped, nor any low unstooped. And if proof is required:

Oh dear Terminal Junkie, OED^▸ (Oxford English Dictionary) disagrees; proof-read is a derivative of the original American word, proofread:

Doesn't say that 'proof read' (two words) is correct though, does it?

If you're going to nitpick (and please note I'm not discouraging it), at least do it properly! 

[grahame]

"Since the beginning of our franchise, we've seenan increasing demand for travel on our services.  While that demand is gratifying in one respect, it can lead to overcrowding on peak services which is why we worked so hard to secure additional carriages"

Not really a 'lighter side' comment from me - much more serious.

The current franchise was let on 1% compound growth per annum (approx), but around 8% was experienced in the lead up to its start, and that growth has carried on since.  If anything the growth has accelerated.   It's my understanding that the franchise bid answered to the "conservative" 1% figure, on the grounds that allowing for a continuing 8% would have lead to extra trains being provided during the life of the franchise which were sparsely used if the growth had stopped.  So some might suggest it was a prudent decision ... but, really, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and First ought to have understood that growth was very likely have continued at that 8% and at least have had plans to deal with it.  But there's evidence, from what I can see, that they were taken by surprise.

Water under the bridge?   Yes and no.  For the upcoming franchise, if it's 15 years, I hope someone's given thought to handling growth.  I know that TravelWatch SouthWest have looked at various growth patterns that may occur and published them, with the very well informed view that the predictions being used by the rail industry are for growth, but at only a franction of what's likely to occur, with a 60% "optimism factor" taken out.

What does this mean?   Let's take a train that's running, every seat take, this year with 150 seats (2 car train)

At 1% growth, by 2028 there will be 175 passengers - same train, 16% standing
At 8% growth, by 2028 there will be 475 passengers - 6 cars not 2 needed.

And at 5% growth (i.e. 8% minus the 60% optimism factor which says that estimates are always too high), by 2028 there will be 312 passengers - 4 cars not 2 needed.

I hope that the DfT and all the bidders are taking these scenarios into account and allowing properly for them, so that we learn from historical issues, rather than letting history repeat itself.  A 15 year franchise needs some flexibility to adjust along the way as the figures "pan out" along the way, rather than needing extraordinary extra measures to fix best-guess forecasting that may prove to have been very inaccurate.

I note that the timetable introduction fails to thank all those extra customers for using First Great Western's services.  Does it read to you almost as if they're saying that the extra custom (which shouldn't have been unexpected) has been a nuisance?

Edit to correct my typo - I had said "2020" when I meant "2028" - the end of the next franchise

[broadgage]

To replace a 2 car train with a 6 car one by 2020 as suggested above is entirely possible if growth continues, though of course it would be expensive.

But what about services that are already overcrowded, and already formed of 2+8 HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) ?
8% growth a year suggests that with a similar timetable to the present one, that we would need trains of at least 30 vehicles.
I am in favour of longer trains, but fully accept that 30 vehicles is most unlikely to be viable.

This does however suggest that we need to plan for 14 or 16 vehicles as being the norm in the future for the busier inter city routes.
Not all services will justify such long trains, but I would suggest that there will be plenty of refurbished HSTs, Voyagers, Adelantes, etc. for use on secondary or less busy routes.
I dont feel that building more short multiple units is the way forward, Full length inter city trains are needed.

The most optimistic growth forecasts suggest 14 or 16 car trains running at twice todays frequencies.

Even a much more modest rate of growth would fill 14 or 16 car trains running to a timetable broadly similar to todays.

[BandHcommuter]

I'm extremely confused. 

On the one hand it would appear that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has enjoyed fantastic growth in passenger demand, apparently far greater than expected, and trains are now overcrowded to the extent that they are leasing lots of additional carriages with the help of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).

On the other hand, I have read elsewhere on this forum that First Great Western also receives "revenue support" from DfT because passenger revenue has failed to meet the levels forecast at the outset of the franchise, suggesting that demand growth has, in fact, been lower than expected. Yet FGW must have known how many passengers they would need to carry in order to generate their revenue forecast, and therefore the number of carriages which they would need to lease.

Any ideas as to what's going on here?

[grahame]

To replace a 2 car train with a 6 car one by 2020 as suggested above is entirely possible if growth continues, though of course it would be expensive.

Yikes - this IS "Spot the error".   15 years takes us to 2028, not 2020 of course - my typo in the post you're answering.   I'm going to go back and edit my post so that others read it correctly, and it's clear that the error is mine not Broadgage's.

Issues still apply.  Perhaps none of the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) should be scrapped when the new electric trains arrive  

[grahame]

I'm extremely confused. 

Any ideas as to what's going on here?

In the railway price world, the long distance stuff makes a healthy profit, the shorter distance stuff makes a loss.  So the First franchise offsets the loss on shorter distance stuff against some of the profit on the longer distance stuff.   And if more short distance stuff has to be provided, it costs!

Then when you add "revenue support" in ... the effect of that is to make it even harder for First to gain from extra traffic gained, with most (around 80%) of the money from that extra traffic going back to the Government.

This is the sort of thing that MUST be addressed in the new franchise agreement in order that more traffic is welcomed and not regarded as being something of a nuisance.

[ellendune]

In the railway price world, the long distance stuff makes a healthy profit, the shorter distance stuff makes a loss.  So the First franchise offsets the loss on shorter distance stuff against some of the profit on the longer distance stuff.   And if more short distance stuff has to be provided, it costs!

So the policy of not regulating long distance anytime is even more unfair than I thought. 

[EBrown]

I intend to leave no barrel unscraped, nor any low unstooped. And if proof is required:

This reminds me of something.

[TerminalJunkie]

This reminds me of something.

Oh, if only! I can see it now...

[The scene: Court 2 at the Old Bailey. Sir Giles Wigham, QC for the Crown, rises to question the defendant]

GW^▸ (Great Western): Can you explain to court why you shot Mr Relex 3,400 times?
Me: I ran out of bullets.