Passengers fight back over rail fare rises

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain) make the front page of todays Times Newspaper. Whether you agree with the planned 'fare strikes' or not, they certainly have the media's attention which isn't good news for FGW^▸ (First Great Western):

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3116000.ece

Also an article in the same paper about tomorrow's fare rises not just on FGW:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3115954.ece

Time's leading article about the fare rises:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3115638.ece

[Shazz]

Whether you agree with the planned 'fare strikes' or not, they certainly have the media's attention which isn't good news for FGW^▸ (First Great Western)

I fail to see what the problem would be if FGW enforced the law anyway, theres nothing wrong with doing that.

sure MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain) will complain they're being singled out, but there millitant tactics need to stop somewhere.

[devon_metro]

Why not try and help FGW^▸ (First Great Western) or something, publicise the FACTs and stop making the situation worse.

I'd love to be able to set up a site that took all alterations and said EXACTLY why it was late as often FGW are too vague.

[Timmer]

Why not try and help FGW^▸ (First Great Western) or something, publicise the FACTs and stop making the situation worse.

I'd love to be able to set up a site that took all alterations and said EXACTLY why it was late as often FGW are too vague.

The reason stories like this appear is it's a FACT that tomorrow fares increase, in some cases considerably and its also a FACT that services are cancelled, overcrowded or short formed all too often. FACT was FGW reduced the amount of rolling stock that was operating on Wessex services which has made things the way they are today and have admitted that they committed to letting too much stock go at the start of the franchise.

I agree that it would be great if FGW were more forthcoming with the reason why a service is cancelled/short run rather than saying 'due to a member of train crew being unavailable' which leads you to the conclusion that they don't have enough staff to run their trains even when at times that may not be the case that a member of the traincrew isn't available because of something more serious happening.

[dog box]

was it not about 6 153s FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Took off lease last year, and now they have got about 12 more units so to my reckoning thats more stock!!!
And as for stuff going up, so has petrol, so has food in the supermarket, and so will council tax....people need to get a life and stop moaning!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Timmer]

What about the 10-14 158s that went off lease a few weeks back that used allow Cardiff-Portsmouth trains to run as three car services back in the days of Wessex Trains and for a few months with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) before the December 06 TT change?

They are now back to 2 car 158s and have been for the past year resulting in chronic overcrowding not just Mon-Fri but a weekends as well. Until FGW reverse what they did in December 06 on this line they won't be in my good books, sorry about that 

[Timmer]

was it not about 6 153s FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Took off lease last year, and now they have got about 12 more units so to my reckoning thats more stock!!!
And as for stuff going up, so has petrol, so has food in the supermarket, and so will council tax....people need to get a life and stop moaning!!!!!!!!!!!1

Some 150s went over to ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) at the same time I recall.

[dog box]

Correct me if i am wrong but was it not the dft that reallocated those 158s up North, and not fgw taking them off lease, fgw wanted to keep them and sucessfully held on to them for another year.
prehaps our fellow posters more up on rolling stock can clear this one up??

[Timmer]

Correct me if i am wrong but was it not the dft that reallocated those 158s up North, and not fgw taking them off lease, fgw wanted to keep them and sucessfully held on to them for another year.
prehaps our fellow posters more up on rolling stock can clear this one up??

They probably can better than me on this but I seem to recall it being said that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) said that they didn't need as many 158s as Wessex so dft said OK they can go else where and said Northern can have them. Since then of course things changed. FGW realised that they DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) need them after all but dft said no can do.

[vacman]

Why not try and help FGW^▸ (First Great Western) or something, publicise the FACTs and stop making the situation worse.

I'd love to be able to set up a site that took all alterations and said EXACTLY why it was late as often FGW are too vague.

The reason stories like this appear is it's a FACT that tomorrow fares increase, in some cases considerably and its also a FACT that services are cancelled, overcrowded or short formed all too often. FACT was FGW reduced the amount of rolling stock that was operating on Wessex services which has made things the way they are today and have admitted that they committed to letting too much stock go at the start of the franchise.

I agree that it would be great if FGW were more forthcoming with the reason why a service is cancelled/short run rather than saying 'due to a member of train crew being unavailable' which leads you to the conclusion that they don't have enough staff to run their trains even when at times that may not be the case that a member of the traincrew isn't available because of something more serious happening.

a few of your FACTS are incorrect old pal, DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) specify fares increases, DFT specify rolling stock allocation, FACT the DFT provided the rather sparse passenger figures to FG before they bid for the franchise (numbers from 2001 I believe?), HOWEVER, FGW are totally to blame for the complete incompetence of resources/rosters which were centralised and are causing hundreds of cancellations due to "a member of train crew being unavailiable" and they need to sort it asap!

[grahame]

(numbers from 2001 I believe?)

... and a forecast growth rate of less that 1% per annum ... I believe.

This is why the service on the TransWilts, which was stepped up to a reasonable level at just about the time the figures were taken and grew compound somewhere between 10% and 35% depending on what statistics you look at got severely cut back in December '06.   There's a heck of a difference between the provision made for a station with 3500 ticket sales per annum and one with over 27000 and that's the story all over I am sure.

Which does not forgive the cancellation rate we're seeing now, 25 months after the franchise was awarded, and twice the time necessary to train up new staff, I think.

[Timmer]

a few of your FACTS are incorrect old pal, DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) specify fares increases, DFT specify rolling stock allocation, FACT the DFT provided the rather sparse passenger figures to FG before they bid for the franchise (numbers from 2001 I believe?), HOWEVER, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are totally to blame for the complete incompetence of resources/rosters which were centralised and are causing hundreds of cancellations due to "a member of train crew being unavailiable" and they need to sort it asap!

Firstly, I'm not old so please don't refer to me in that way thanks Vacman.
 
Did I say above that FGW are responsible for today's fare increases? NO However there are some un-regulated fares which they can raise as much as they like. Yes DFT to specify rolling stock allocation which is way below what is required, not just on FGW but on other parts of the rail network in the way that they underwrite the leases between the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) and the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) but also allow rail companies to run whatever stock they wish at their own risk otherwise why is FGW saying that they are scouring the country looking for any suitable rolling stock?

It was very unfortunate that DFT provided First with completely out of date passenger figures but surely their own surveys would show that the was a pretty good reason why Wessex Trains were running Cardiff-Pompey services as three carriages and not two. Between them DFT and FGW reduced the amount of rolling stock operating on West services at the time of finalizing the new franchise agreement. FGW have to take there share of responsibility for the reduction in rolling stock.

At the end of the day all three of the above FACTS are correct. Fares have increased today yes? Services will be overcrowded, cancelled and short run/formed yes? The only fact that may be up for debate was who was responsible for cutting the amount of rolling stock operated on West services.

[Lee]

A couple of points to note on this :

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) (or SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) to be exact) did not specify the precise number of units/carriages but did "strongly hint" to bidders (in the ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender)) that rolling stock cuts were required.

Whatever their reasons or the info that they based the mistake on, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have admitted that they underestimated demand in their bid. "We f***** up" was the phrase used by one insider.

Also see quote below :

FGW have 12 more units than the franchise spec

the unit shortage is only because of the franchise spec for less unit's (we've actually got 17 more units than whats in the franchise spec).

Another way of looking at it would be this :

WEST FLEET UNDER WESSEX :

Class 143 - 8 units, 832 seats.
Class 150 - 25 units, 3475 seats.
Class 153 - 15 units, 1125 seats.
Class 158 (2 - coach) - 12 units, 1680 seats.
Class 158 (3 - coach) - 9 units, 1971 seats.

TOTAL UNITS - 69
TOTAL CARRIAGES - 132
TOTAL SEATS - 9083

WEST FLEET - FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FGW AND DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) :

Class 143 - 8 units, 832 seats.
Class 150 - 17 units, 2363 seats.
Class 153 - 10 units, 750 seats.
Class 158 (2 - coach) - 22 units, 3080 seats.
Class 158 (3 - coach) - 1 unit, 219 seats.

TOTAL UNITS - 58
TOTAL CARRIAGES - 107
TOTAL SEATS - 7244

CURRENT WEST FLEET

Class 142 - 12 units, 1452 seats.
Class 143 - 8 units, 832 seats.
Class 150 - 19 units, 2639 seats.
Class 153 - 12 units, 900 seats.
Class 158 (2 - coach) - 20 units, 2800 seats.
Class 158 (3 - coach) - 1 unit, 219 seats.

TOTAL UNITS - 72
TOTAL CARRIAGES - 133
TOTAL SEATS - 8842

CAVEATS :

1)   Class 142 units are assumed to have 121 seats per unit (source - Angel Trains.) I am told that some may have less.

2)   Class 150/1 units are assumed to have 138 seats per unit (source - Angel Trains.) I am told that some have 124 seats per unit.

CONCLUSION :

1) FGW have 14 more units, 26 more carriages, and 1598 more seats in the West Fleet than was set down in the Franchise Agreement.

2) FGW have 3 more units, 1 more carriage, and 241 less seats (best case scenario) in the West fleet than Wessex had.

3) Wessex aimed for around 84% fleet availability, whereas FGW appear to be aiming for around 76%

Smoke and mirrors with bells on. Both the DfT and FGW can claim they are right, but neither seems to be capable of actually solving the problem.

Going back to MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain), its interesting that Tony Ambrose has managed to "piggyback" on to issues elsewhere (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7167073.stm

More fare rise articles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7166663.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7167367.stm

[vacman]

a few of your FACTS are incorrect old pal, DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) specify fares increases, DFT specify rolling stock allocation, FACT the DFT provided the rather sparse passenger figures to FG before they bid for the franchise (numbers from 2001 I believe?), HOWEVER, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are totally to blame for the complete incompetence of resources/rosters which were centralised and are causing hundreds of cancellations due to "a member of train crew being unavailiable" and they need to sort it asap!

Firstly, I'm not old so please don't refer to me in that way thanks Vacman.
 
Did I say above that FGW are responsible for today's fare increases? NO However there are some un-regulated fares which they can raise as much as they like. Yes DFT to specify rolling stock allocation which is way below what is required, not just on FGW but on other parts of the rail network in the way that they underwrite the leases between the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) and the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) but also allow rail companies to run whatever stock they wish at their own risk otherwise why is FGW saying that they are scouring the country looking for any suitable rolling stock?

It was very unfortunate that DFT provided First with completely out of date passenger figures but surely their own surveys would show that the was a pretty good reason why Wessex Trains were running Cardiff-Pompey services as three carriages and not two. Between them DFT and FGW reduced the amount of rolling stock operating on West services at the time of finalizing the new franchise agreement. FGW have to take there share of responsibility for the reduction in rolling stock.

At the end of the day all three of the above FACTS are correct. Fares have increased today yes? Services will be overcrowded, cancelled and short run/formed yes? The only fact that may be up for debate was who was responsible for cutting the amount of rolling stock operated on West services.

Old Pal is a tongue in cheek friendly welcome in Cornwall, wasn't refering to your age but if it offended then my appologies  ,
The "unregulated fares" which I believe Cheap Day Returns are one? Cheap days were dramaticly reduced by FGW in 2006 in most areas, by as much as 60% and in this fare rise most cheap days haven't risen, I do accept that part of the blame is on FGW's doorstep but the DFT are the real villians in this, and the DFT are succeeding in their plan as it is the TOC's that are getting the public criticism, FGW did hold their hands up and say they got it wrong, hence why they have fare more units than specified in the franchise, WHY WON^▸ (Weekly Operating Notice )'T THE DFT HOLD THEIR HANDS UP AND SAY THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG ASWEL!

[Lee]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) did hold their hands up and say they got it wrong, hence why they have fare more units than specified in the franchise, WHY WON^▸ (Weekly Operating Notice )'T THE DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) HOLD THEIR HANDS UP AND SAY THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG ASWEL!

Ah, but isnt that smoke and mirrors as well? Both the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and FGW seem to have said that 12 of those units were provided by the DfT (link below.)
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144913&command=displayContent&sourceNode=231190&home=yes&more_nodeId1=144922&contentPK=18936369

Mr Harris (Rail Minister) told the Post: "The number and type of trains on the railway is mainly a matter for train operators."

He added: "Our priority is to ensure there is capacity for the travelling public and we have ensured replacement trains are available."

First Great Western spokesman Lance Cole said: "Nothing is set in stone, but come the December 9 timetable changes, the Pacers will be on the Exeter to Barnstaple line. I am not aware they will be used in the Bristol area in a couple of months time."

"The DfT takes responsibility for taking strategic rolling stock decision and that decision is to give us 12 Pacers."

Back to the fare rises and a quote from Adrian Booth, spokesman for FGW (link below.)
http://thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=143632&command=displayContent&sourceNode=142719&contentPK=19412222&folderPk=91672&pNodeId=201778

The ^13m generated by these January 2008 fare rises contribute to the cost of the biggest investment programme of any rail franchise in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), designed to help deliver those improvements. Inflation accounts for an additional ^17m.