FGW named Rail Business of the Year in 2015 and subsequent ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Super Guard]

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^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

[IndustryInsider]

But FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have been trumpeting the 'biggest investment since Brunel" or whatever the tagline is...

A savvy TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) would now be putting out posters claiming they're making 'even more investment since Brunel' now it's costing more... 

[TaplowGreen]

But FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have been trumpeting the 'biggest investment since Brunel" or whatever the tagline is...

A savvy TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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"?

[ChrisB]

Isn't there a Network Rail logo on those as well as FGWs^▸ (First Great Western)?

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

[The Tall Controller]

The 'Building a Greater West' campaign is a joint venture from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Network Rail which is why you will always see a NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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^▸ (Great Western Railway).

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.)

[thetrout]

I'll be honest... FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^‡(resolve) 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^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

[JayMac]

I would expect that anyone who has an ounce of knowledge of the world of our railway franchise system would know that a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

But someone less savvy? They'll see the posters (on or near FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

[a-driver]

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^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)) and the cost of training drivers on the Reading station area and, in the near future, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) to operate the franchise.

At the end of the day though, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^» (Network Rail - home page) or the DfT won't advertise it because they wouldn't gain anything financially by doing so.

[JayMac]

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^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)) and the cost of training drivers on the Reading station area and, in the near future, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) to operate the franchise.

I'm only commenting on the specific of infrastructure investment - 'Building A Greater West'. Something FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

[a-driver]

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^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)) and the cost of training drivers on the Reading station area and, in the near future, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) to operate the franchise.

I'm only commenting on the specific of infrastructure investment - 'Building A Greater West'. Something FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^‡(resolve) 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^▸ (High Speed Train) to IEP represents a huge increase in leasing charges.  What they don't want is another XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) where new trains have crippled the business.   

[TaplowGreen]

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^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)) and the cost of training drivers on the Reading station area and, in the near future, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) to operate the franchise.

I'm only commenting on the specific of infrastructure investment - 'Building A Greater West'. Something FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

Recruiting/training new staff is Operational Expenditure (OPEX), Infrastructure Investment is Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) ^ clearly the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) is responsible for one, and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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.

[Super Guard]

I would expect that anyone who has an ounce of knowledge of the world of our railway franchise system would know that a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

But someone less savvy? They'll see the posters (on or near FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

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.

[IndustryInsider]

It depends on what you think 'Building A Greater West' actually means. 

According to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) '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^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) or any other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company), (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!

[Richard Fairhurst]

To my mind FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

I see your point, but TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) to the mix as well. ) FGW is the company accountable to the public for Building A Greater West, whether for credit or blame.

[chrisr_75]

To my mind FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

I see your point, but TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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.