Error in Easter 2015 changes document on the FGW web site?

[whole diary]

[Ollie]

I'm not sure what proof reading takes place at FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to be honest, having done some proof reading myself, I know it can be a bit tedious - and something like a date, that for all sense and purposes looks right but has the wrong number, it could quite easily be missed.

[thetrout]

I also brought to the attention of FGW^▸ (First Great Western). A rather interesting wording on the following page:

https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/swindon2015

First Paragraph:

As a result, there will be no trains stopping at Swindon station on the Saturday and Sunday or Chippenham from Saturday to Monday meaning Bristol Temple Meads services will be diverted. We will also be able to run trains to South Wales ^ albeit on a diverted route ^ adding up to 60 (it's actually 30-75 minutes, depending on the day) minutes to usual journey times.

Which to me suggests this was a draft document that was copy/pasted without amendments made. In the same document there is an abbreviation of (RRS) in several places with the full version of Rail Replacement Service listed in full before each abbreviation.


Just to reiterate what Ollie said also. Proofreading is all very well and good. But it is tedious work and if you're doing this for hours on end or for days. You will become lazy or you will make the same mistakes the original author made. If you are dyslexic or dyspraxic that also doesn't help. This makes you much more susceptible to errors.

I am aware of a Hotel which collapsed in Singapore in 1986 which ultimately occurred because of a proof reading error. The investigation discovered the buildings Live Load (furnishings and occupants of the building) was calculated correctly. But the Dead Load (The weight of the actual building itself) was forgotten in the calculations. This basic principle ultimately lead to an accident waiting to happen

[The Tall Controller]

The proof-reading is done by at least 4 or 5 different people excluding ourselves and it I've seen first hand how detailed their checking is! However it can often be the simple mistakes that slip through. I'll certainly feedback anything that hasn't already been brought to our attention though.

We've got two new members of our 4 man team recently started (including myself) in the Publications department so hopefully things will imporve! 

[Chris from Nailsea]

... so hopefully things will imporve! 

Indeed. 

[JayMac]

We've got two new members of our 4 man team recently started (including myself) in the Publications department so hopefully things will imporve! 

The 'rolling eyes' smiley and typo says a lot.

Are these new people in the publications department briefed to continue with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) taking credit for the public money being invested in the rail network in the west?

[Ollie]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) taking credit for the public money being invested in the rail network in the west?

The "Greater West" page (the one that has full detail about what it's all about) says "^7.5 billion from Network Rail" - so I would say it's safe to say it's not a case of taking credit for something. FGW are the current operator on this route, and it's only right that they promote the changes that are happening on it. If they didn't they would probably just get slated for not talking about changes to the route, so quite frankly, they just can't win. People will find something to pass judgement on either way.

I'm going to refrain from posting further on this one. so have a good weekend.

[JayMac]

Admirable defence of your paymaster Ollie, but...

My current ticket wallet:


And a poster from one of my local stations:


Where's Network Rail?

It's delightful also to see the #GreaterWest hashtag being used for a purpose FGW^▸ (First Great Western) probably didn't intend.
http://www.fgwkickedmycat.com/a-catalogue-of-disasters/clueless/greater-west/

Many tweets of FGW 'Building A Greater West' advertising at that link or through searching #greaterwest'. All either missing the Network Rail logo, or having it much less prominent than 'First Great Western'. For ^7.5bn I'd want my logo and company name front and centre.

In bold. 36pt. Multicoloured.

I'd also like to see it made abundantly clear that this is public money.

The "Greater West" page (the one that has full detail about what it's all about) says "^7.5 billion from Network Rail"

Where exactly does it say that?

The text at: https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/About-Us/greater-west says:

Building a Greater West

176 years after Isambard Kingdom Brunel first built the Great Western Railway, rail is as important as it has ever been;   to our communities, our regions and the country as a whole.

The revolutionary impact of Brunel^s vision turned a corner of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) into a vibrant, prosperous region, enabling communities to connect, trade in fresh produce, flourish and invent mass tourism.  This made the West great.

Today, First Great Western with Network Rail are the proud custodians of this railway and we operate, maintain and renew it through thousands of our dedicated employees. 

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take our railway to where it needs to be and to deliver the service our customers deserve.  With over ^7.5 billion being spent to build a Greater West, we will take this opportunity to turn that investment in track, trains and stations, into investment in communities in the regions that we serve.

While we make the improvements there will be periods of disruption from time to time, including railway closures, changes to station operations and rail replacement services. We will endeavour to minimise and avoid there where possible.  By working together with Network Rail in an innovative way we will design, engineer and deliver this route modernisation programme with our passengers and stakeholders in mind.

We will electrify our tracks, modernise our stations and introduce new high-speed trains equipped with modern technology and high standards of comfort to deliver the investment made by the Department for Transport.

Together, First Great Western and Network Rail will build a Greater West for our passengers and the communities we serve.

Look at that through the eyes of Joe Public and tell me it's clear that the investment is coming wholly from Network Rail.

Then there's this FGW operated Class 43 power car as well. Now I do like a non-standard livery - makes for exciting spotting - but again, it appears to be missing any mention of Network Rail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KHfvyMDFlY

[Network SouthEast]

BNM: To be fair to FGW^▸ (First Great Western), it is wrong to say that FGW's contribution is nothing and everything from Network Rail.

FGW will be paying something towards this work because they have to pay track access charges to Network Rail, they don't get to use the rails for free.

I don't think your ticket wallet is wrong either. As a passenger, your ticket revenue is making a contribution towards this upgrade work too.

The Network Rail upgrade works aren't to keep the service level the same either, it will enable more services to operate. More services = more track access charges. FGW (or whoever operates the franchise in the course of time) will be paying higher leasing costs on the new trains needed to make the most of the upgraded infrastructure.

By the way, I'm not necessarily saying I personally like the advertising campaign, but to suggest FGW's contribution will be nothing is a tad unfair.

[grahame]

Let's agree (I think) and celebrate that investments are being made for the future, and admit that railway finances are some damn complex ...

[JayMac]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will be paying something towards this work because they have to pay track access charges to Network Rail, they don't get to use the rails for free.

Track access charges come from ticket revenue. That's passengers money not FGWs. As I've said before, railway franchising doesn't allow for TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to make capital investment in infrastructue. To suggest with advertising that they do is misleading.

[ellendune]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will be paying something towards this work because they have to pay track access charges to Network Rail, they don't get to use the rails for free.

Track access charges come from ticket revenue. That's passengers money not FGWs. As I've said before, railway franchising doesn't allow for TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to make capital investment in infrastructue. To suggest with advertising that they do is misleading.

A curious logic. Any business, for example a supermarket, takes money from its customers. It then becomes the company's money.  It can either take it as profit, distributing it to the shareholders, or invest it. If it invests it the shareholders do not receive it, but expect a return later.  Whose money is the investment then?

Is FGW any different because the fares are regulated?  You could say that the supermarket's prices are regulated by the market since they have competitors and if they charge too much their customers will go elsewhere. 

[grahame]

I had understood that certain capital investments - such as the station at Warwick Parkway - were made by the train company.  However, with relatively short contracts the time for payback of the investment isn't long unless there's residual value left in what's invested in, and the fact that the infrastructure is leased from Network Rail and has to be returned in the same condition it was in when taken over is also something of a discouragement.    There can (I suspect "is" in the case of Warwick Parkway) be the ability to hand something back enhanced, even if it then requires a higher upkeep spend in the future.

On a similar tack. marketing investment for promotion / the purpose of generating ongoing profitable income will be front loaded in any franchise period, with later marketing being aimed more at the popularity with (in particular) the people who make the next franchise award.  Some will, no doubt, be longer term too but perhaps that will be factored by the likelihood of the next bid being won.

[ChrisB]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will be paying something towards this work because they have to poay track access charges to Network Rail, they don't get to use the rails for free.

Track access charges come from ticket revenue. That's passengers money not FGWs. As I've said before, railway franchising doesn't allow for TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) to make capital investment in infrastructue. To suggest with advertising that they do is misleading.

That so obviously incorrect.

I give you Warwick Parkway, Aylesbury Vale Parkway, the re-built Bicester Town (shortly to be renamed Bicester Village) and Oxford Parkway.

All built or being built by a franchise holder

[ellendune]

I give you Warwick Parkway, Aylesbury Vale Parkway, the re-built Bicester Town (shortly to be renamed Bicester Village) and Oxford Parkway.

All built or being built by a franchise holder

Indeed the same franchise holder (Chiltern) - the only one with a long franchise!

However, wasn't East Midlands Parkway also built by the Franchise holder?

[JayMac]

I'll concede that a few stations have been built by TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), although responsibility for building East Midlands Parkway transferred from Midland Mainline to Network Rail after East Midlands Trains took over the franchise.

Figures for Aylesbury Vale Parkway station and track/signalling improvements show that the largest investment, ^8m, came from the taxpayer, ^2m from Chiltern and ^1m from Bucks County Council. Warwick Parkway was jointly funded by Chiltern and Warks County Council.

Chiltern with a very long franchise, much different in financial structure to others, have made infrastructure investment. But not wholly on their own. Evergreen 3 is being paid for initially by Network Rail, and Chiltern (or its successors) are repaying the cost with a facility charge over 30 years.

Not to forget the net public subsidy that goes to Chiltern, and its portion of the Network Grant that keeps track access charges artificially low.

However, the majority of rail franchises do not make or pay for large scale (not just the odd station) infrastructure investment. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) do not and the point under discussion is that their advertising, to the layman, appears to suggest otherwise.

The vast majority of infrastructure investment in the railways comes from fare revenues and the taxpayer. TOCs, unlike almost any other business, make hardly any capital investment in infrastructure from profits. The byzantine franchising system doesn't allow for it.