Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
 today - ACoRP board nominations close
29/10/2018 - Avocet line AGM
30/10/2018 - Minehaed Rail Link Group
31/10/2018 - CCIF Applications close
06/11/2018 - Talk Oxford / 800 intro
10/11/2018 - RailFuture National Conference
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
October 22, 2018, 01:12:10 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[156] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[71] Weymouth Harbour railway line - merged topic, ongoing discussi...
[58] Where was Lee?
[56] Weekend Engineering Works
[48] Tram Surfer Awarded 485000 Damages
[46] Cambrian ERTMS - Loss of TSR Data (20/10/2017)
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
  Print  
Author Topic: ScotRail's plans for their HSTs.  (Read 10929 times)
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3974


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2017, 06:04:17 pm »

..............so in the sure and certain knowledge, held for some time that electric trains would not be running to Cardiff this year, what did GWR do to mitigate the problem of knowing that they would have to give up old trains before new trains were available? (......or am I again making the unjustified assumption that GWR understand or indulge in the strange concept of "contingency planning"?)

 "OOz gonna pay for it?".

Contingency planning does require some knowledge of what contingency you're planning for ... and there have been so many variables here, not least trying to second guess DfT decisions on rolling stock, that any contingency plans had to be at the broadest level only.

So in terms of "variables", right now GWR have;

I) Shortage of drivers (now increasingly on weekdays as well as weekends)
II) Shortage of train crew
III) Shortage of Customer Service staff (hence delays of months in replies to correspondence).
IV) Shortage of Ticket office staff (LTV ticket offices closed at short/no notice, often with broken TVMs too)
V) "More trains than usual" needing repairs - leading to numerous short formations.

All of these entirely within their control - contingencies? (I guess a few trains given away may mitigate the driver shortage)

As for blaming the DfT, you can only get away with that up to a point, and it's worn very thin.

GWR have an extremely highly paid Chief Executive ( [derogatory text removed]) - time for him to grow a pair, earn his salary and address these issues with the DfT and other stakeholders rather than hiding behind the boardroom table.

As for "Oooooooos gunna pay for it" - the same people as always will - the customers - but if GWR publish a timetable, the accountability for delivering the services within it in terms of rolling stock is theirs and theirs alone.

Edit by grahame - 13:12 on 25th August - text removed as shown.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 01:14:13 pm by grahame » Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22133



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2017, 07:13:46 pm »

As for blaming the DfT, you can only get away with that up to a point, and it's worn very thin.

Totally agree with you on that. It's very convenient having split responsibility between multiple organisations, because they can both point at each other.

Quote
GWR have an extremely highly paid Chief Executive ...

You may like to go back and modify your post, as that went on to be very close to a personal attack.  Also incorrect as it's certainly NOT by all accounts.  There are those of us who have a very different view, but of course being the CEO, he's mandated to place his shareholders in a priority position; the trick is to work it for the mutual benefit of shareholders and passengers.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3974


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2017, 06:04:40 am »

As for blaming the DfT, you can only get away with that up to a point, and it's worn very thin.

Totally agree with you on that. It's very convenient having split responsibility between multiple organisations, because they can both point at each other.

Quote
GWR have an extremely highly paid Chief Executive ...

You may like to go back and modify your post, as that went on to be very close to a personal attack.  Also incorrect as it's certainly NOT by all accounts.  There are those of us who have a very different view, but of course being the CEO, he's mandated to place his shareholders in a priority position; the trick is to work it for the mutual benefit of shareholders and passengers.

Thanks Graham, I'm aware of Corporate structure and the role of the CEO, and in this case it's a perfect illustration of the problems and conflicts often created by combining it with the MD role.

One of the things that both roles have in common however are a great deal of accountability, and in this context I'd be interested in your thoughts on the performance of his organisation, taking my points (I) to (V) into account specifically, and his management of the situations given that the buck stops with him?
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2175



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2017, 09:03:08 am »

They should have asked me what my crystal ball foretold.
Right near the beginning of the long thread about the new trains, I forecast that there would be a rush to scrap/store/use elsewhere the HSTs before sufficient new DMUs were available.
Now looks what is happening!

I based my prediction upon the introduction of other new trains, including the downgrading of Waterloo/Exeter services from full length loco hauled trains to 3 car DMUs. There was a huge rush to remove the locomotives and coaches BEFORE sufficient new DMUs were available.
Likewise when networkers replaced slam door EMUs on South London services, the rush to scrap the old trains BEFORE enough new units were working reliably resulted in many cancellation and half length trains in the rush hour.
Logged

"When customers say that they want a seat, they dont mean they want to sit with their knees behind their ears so that 4 more can sit down. They mean that they want an extra coach so that 74 more can sit down"
"Capacity on intercity routes should be about number of vehicles, not compressing people"
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22133



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #49 on: August 25, 2017, 09:46:16 am »

As for blaming the DfT, you can only get away with that up to a point, and it's worn very thin.

Totally agree with you on that. It's very convenient having split responsibility between multiple organisations, because they can both point at each other.

Quote
GWR have an extremely highly paid Chief Executive ...

You may like to go back and modify your post, as that went on to be very close to a personal attack.  Also incorrect as it's certainly NOT by all accounts.  There are those of us who have a very different view, but of course being the CEO, he's mandated to place his shareholders in a priority position; the trick is to work it for the mutual benefit of shareholders and passengers.

Thanks Graham, I'm aware of Corporate structure and the role of the CEO, and in this case it's a perfect illustration of the problems and conflicts often created by combining it with the MD role.

One of the things that both roles have in common however are a great deal of accountability, and in this context I'd be interested in your thoughts on the performance of his organisation, taking my points (I) to (V) into account specifically, and his management of the situations given that the buck stops with him?


I note you have not yet edited your previous post to remove what I considered to be a personal attack on the CEO of GWR. Since expressing that view to you, I have had several moderator messages confirming a wider view that it was a personal attack, and is against your forum agreement. Please modify your post to remove the personal attack.

When member post, they are responsible for the material they post.  However, when a post comes to the attention of the moderators / admins as being in potential breach of laws (copyright, defamation, decency, etc) it becomes the responsibility of the site operators too to remove such potential breaches within a reasonable time if the original poster's not done so off his own bat.  We make every attempt to allow for a very wide range of views, but I cannot let myself be compromised legally, and would appreciate you taking a pragmatic view and sort it out - I'm sure your initial intent was not to put the forum operators here into an awkward position, was it?

Once this is resolved, quite happy to discuss whether the CEO of a subsidiary company in a group is responsible for everything ("buck stops here" mode), whether some passes back up to Aberdeen, etc.    I may also quality my general answer already given to your five points.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1341


View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2017, 09:56:41 am »

As for blaming the DfT, you can only get away with that up to a point, and it's worn very thin.

Totally agree with you on that. It's very convenient having split responsibility between multiple organisations, because they can both point at each other.
Indeed, the fragmented part-privatised rail system allows the various parties to get away with things by blaming each other in a circular reference. Re-nationalisation probably wouldn't bring back the lower-costs BR had it its latter years, but at least the government wouldn't be able to hide the fact they are responsible for unpopular changes being made (such as the move to enforce Driver-Only Operation on Southern; with the number of strikes that have happened so far surely a private TOC working alone without government support would have had to back down by now).

If Mark Hopwood is the Cheif Executive as well as Managing Director, then some of the above criticism might be justified (I won't go as far as to say that it is justified, because I don't know him, or the details of the situation or what he has actually done). I say this because, if I recall correctly, it was Mark Hopwood who wrote in Modern Railways years ago (2011 I think) that the use of class 222 units between London and Exeter/Plymouth/Penzance had been ruled out because passengers did not like the cramped interiors and underfloor diesel engines of those trains. I think the same article also said that they were keen to avoid falling into 'the class 180 trap' of  a fleet of trains not long enough for the job (in a way that suggested they were looking at a mix of short and long bi-mode units for the IEP routes). Rather than 'sticking to his guns' and standing up to the DfT (and/or FirstGW's financial departments) he instead allowed the IEP class 800 order to be comprised solely of 5-car units and the replacement of the IC125 fleet for Penzance with underfloor-engined units.

Ironically the electrification delays may actually have resulted in a more-useful fleet of trains than was expected at the award of the direct-award, as the extra 802s for Oxford and the 801 order changed to 800s mean there are now 9-car fully-capable bi-mode units in the fleet (but still far too many driving vehicles with 5-car units).
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 12:54:20 pm by Rhydgaled » Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3974


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2017, 12:32:19 pm »

In order to preserve the delicate feelings of some I'm happy to qualify that all the accounts I personally have heard regarding Hopwood suggesting that [ derogatory text removed ]  represent a small number and as such do not represent all the accounts per se that everyone may or have ever made about him.....I'm sure there are a wide range of opinions, some better, some worse.....I'm also happy to withdraw the word "little" as this is may also be considered inaccurate.

Edit by GrahamE - 14:15 on 25th August.    Sorry - but this was a repeat of the defamatory text which had to be removed for legal reasons, which as initially posted could potentially have got the original poster into trouble, and once it was brought to my attention could have got me into trouble.      I am currently away from base and with limited internet access - so in order to help avoid this escalating I've placed a posting freeze on the original poster of this message.  When I'm back early next week I'll write and explain more fully and - once I'm assured that my message is understood and defamatory posts will be avoided in future - will remove the freeze.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 01:28:25 pm by grahame » Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22133



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2017, 06:08:58 pm »

Rail Magazine has published a full list of power cars headed for Scotland.   Here it is sorted and with names added.

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/hst-cascade-plan-for-scotrail

43003   Ismbard Kingdom Brunel
43012   Exeter Panel Signal Box
43015
43021   David Austin - Cartoonist
43026   Michael Eavis
43028
43030   Christian Lewis Trust
43031
43032
43033   Driver Brian Cooper, 15 June 1947 - 5 October 1999
43034   TravelWatch SouthWest
43035
43036
43037   Penydarren
43124   
43125
43126
43127   Sir Peter Parker 1924 - 2002 Cotswold Line 150
43128
43129
43130
43131
43132   We Save the Children - Will You?
43133
43134
43135
43136
43137   Newton Abbot 150
43138
43139   Driver Stan Martin 25 June 1950 - 6 November 2004
43140   Landore Diesel Depot 1963 Celebrating 50 Years 2013 / Depo Diesel Gandwr 1963 Dathu 50 Mylnedd 2013
43141   Cardiff Panel Signal Box 1966-2016/Blwch Signalau Panel Caerdydd 1966-2016
43142   Reading Panel Signal Box 1965-2010
43143   Stroud 700
43144
43145
43146
43147   Royal Marines Celebrating 350 Years
43148
43149   University of Plymouth
43150
43151
43152
43163
43164
43168
43169   The National Trust
43175   GWR - 175th Anniversary
43176
43177
43179   Pride of Laira
43181
43182
43183

Names as at http://www.125group.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/fleetlist.pdf - July 2016
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: September 10, 2017, 07:11:10 pm »

I doubt they will, but it would be a nice gesture if 033 and 139 retained their nameplates.
Logged
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3974


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: September 10, 2017, 07:25:09 pm »

Just out of interest, what's the significance of those two drivers?
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6712


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: September 10, 2017, 07:27:18 pm »

Brian was killed in the Ladbroke Grove crash and Stan in the Ufton Nervet one.
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 944


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: September 10, 2017, 07:59:07 pm »

I doubt they will, but it would be a nice gesture if 033 and 139 retained their nameplates.
If not, maybe they can be transferred onto the 800s as 'Great Westerners'.
Logged
bobm
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6959



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: September 10, 2017, 08:28:10 pm »

I doubt it too. However it would be nice if the nameplates found their way to the families if, of course, they would like them.
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1341


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 12, 2017, 01:28:52 pm »

it would be a nice gesture if 033 and 139 retained their nameplates.
I agree. I also hope that 43003 either retains its nameplates (sadly very unlikely) or those nameplates are kept safe in the ROSCO's possession (with the power car not being given a different name in the meantime) to be sold with the loco when it is eventually withdrawn from service (and hopefully then enters preservation, if it goes for scrap then sell the nameplates seperately but hold onto them until that day).

Shame 43175 isn't staying for the GWR short sets, it would have been rather fitting to keep it on the Great Western and give it the metal logos off 43005, 43187 or 43188 (ditto for 43003).
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2175



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: September 12, 2017, 07:58:51 pm »

I doubt it too. However it would be nice if the nameplates found their way to the families if, of course, they would like them.

Agree, or if the families don't want the nameplates, perhaps they could be auctioned and the proceeds given to the families ?
Logged

"When customers say that they want a seat, they dont mean they want to sit with their knees behind their ears so that 4 more can sit down. They mean that they want an extra coach so that 74 more can sit down"
"Capacity on intercity routes should be about number of vehicles, not compressing people"
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 3 [4] 5 6
  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 a customer 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). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants