Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 12:55 28 Mar 2024
* Man held over stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
11:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
11:23 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
11:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
11:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
Additional 12:07 Bristol Temple Meads to Gloucester
12:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
13:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:26 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:41 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
11:48 London Paddington to Carmarthen
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
12:32 Exeter Central to Okehampton
12:46 Avonmouth to Weston-Super-Mare
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:07 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:26 Okehampton to Exeter Central
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
Delayed
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:29 Weymouth to Gloucester
11:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
12:27 Okehampton to Exeter Central
12:28 Plymouth to Gunnislake
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 13:05:54 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[151] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[85] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[58] Return of the BRUTE?
[49] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[46] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[36] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: Well would you believe it PART 2  (Read 18705 times)
mada
Guest
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2008, 20:58:45 »

This is why we should have an English parliament. Currently a larger percentage of British taxes are spent per head on the Welsh and Scottish than the English. Personally I think power should be devolved to English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish parliaments with the issues which effect us all such as health and defence being dealt with at a UK (United Kingdom) level. You could also do away with the house of Lords and have the UK parliament performing that role for the local ones and vice versa. Everything would be more democratic and issues such as transport in England would be dealt with more fairly in the same way as in Wales.
Logged
Shazz
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 534


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2008, 21:00:50 »

The reason i think they're not investing in new stock yet, is that they want to wait for etrms to hit the valleys, so they dont have to make 2 investments, plus they can double the number of trains running at the same time. So the potential is there for a huge investment in stock come then, so someone will be raking it in for a stock order.

come the final roll out (2018 for the valleys if the trial goes to plan? same year as they want to replace the pacers etc)

In a way, i can see the sence in doing it this way, as the amount of stock they need to replace is a vast amount, across the whole atw network.

Plus queen street really needs to be 5 platforms, not the 3 it currently is if growth  continues at this rate.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 21:09:37 by Shazz » Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2008, 04:26:04 »

The DafT specified how many units the franchise needed in their greatest hour of wisdom and therefore it was not necessary for FGW (First Great Western) to renew the lease on 8 150s...

The DfT» (Department for Transport - about) didnt specify how many units the franchise needed but the SRA» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) did strongly hint in the Invitation To Tender. They did this by listing the amount of units (broken down by class) that SRA/Jacobs research indicated were required.

Therefore you could argue that the bidders took their lead from that.

However, we know from FOI (Freedom of Information) disclosures that the final decision to go with 2-coach rather than 3-coach Class 158 units was based on a detailed comparison of then-current loadings mapped onto the new December 2006 service pattern conducted by FGW. The benefits were seen to be capacity on key services and performance (avoidance of cancellations, standbys at strategic locations, fleet cycling etc.) It was described as "a vast improvement on what was originally proposed."

There would obviously be cause for debate as to whether they reached the correct conclusion.....

It should also be noted, though, that people like Andrew Griffiths realised that there would still be some very busy trains, which is why they pressed for extra HST (High Speed Train) stops to be made at local stations during the peaks.

This was found to be more difficult than first thought to implement at locations such as Keynsham and Oldfield Park.

I would argue that the above is relevant, given that the proposed transfer of Class 150 units from ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company))) is meant to unlock the potential for 3-coach Class 158 units to be created.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 05:52:28 by Lee Fletcher » Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
DanielP
Full Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2008, 09:42:09 »

Great news for FGW (First Great Western)! Congrats, you are pretty much back to where you were when Wessex had the franchise!! The Govt have got a real cheek making FGW pay for this recovery plan though.

I can't possibly see that Arriva will give up the 150s without being compensated. I would guess that the compensation will have to be a deal with 180s. Also, as it says that the new stock will arrive in Summer 08, is there not a chance that the other stock may be used with a little clever jiggery pokery? I think it will be one of the biggest railway scandals of recent years if a company is divested of stock required to run an enhanced service after millions of pounds have been spent on platform extensions + train repaints and alterations!

I suppose that the other alternative is that WAG» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) will pay FGW to run say, the Vale of Glamorgan or Maesteg service as an extension of one of their Cardiff routes with the additional stock they have and that Arriva will not longer require the extra units.........that would mean that FGW would have an extra income stream to help pay for the rescue plan??

This is pretty tense!

Daniel
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 09:46:55 by DanielP » Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2008, 09:54:21 »

I suppose that the other alternative is that WAG» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) will pay FGW (First Great Western) to run say, the Vale of Glamorgan or Maesteg service as an extension of one of their Cardiff routes with the additional stock they have and that Arriva will not longer require the extra units.........that would mean that FGW would have an extra income stream to help pay for the rescue plan??

There is a relevant priced option in the Franchise Agreement :

Quote
1. EXTENSION OF PORTSMOUTH-CARDIFF SERVICES TO SERVE CARDIFF AIRPORT

Description, Objective and Specification.

1.1 This is a Priced Option to change the Service Level Commitment to amend the SLC2 by extending the current Portsmouth to Cardiff Central Service to Rhoose station with effect from the Timetable Change Date in December 2006, with the extension to be funded by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) through a separate funding agreement to be entered into between the Secretary of State and WAG.

1.2 Where this Priced Option is called after the signature of the Franchise Agreement, it is conditional on the Franchisee being able to secure before the date of the Timetable Conference in February 2006 an option to an additional Class 158 unit at the price specified in the Financial Model, unless the Secretary of State agrees to fund any incremental price (which will in turn be funded by WAG).

1.3 If the Secretary of State elects to call this Priced Option, he shall attach to the written notice he serves pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 (Priced Options) of the Terms, a Service Level Commitment that takes account of the extension of the current Portsmouth to Cardiff Central Service to Rhoose station with effect from the Timetable Change Date in December 2006.

1.6 Provided the Secretary of State has called this Priced Option by the 31 January 2006, the Franchisee shall procure that this Priced Option is implemented on and from the Timetable Change Date in December 2006.

1.9 The Secretary of State may call this Priced Option up to and including 31 January 2006.
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
DanielP
Full Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2008, 10:07:37 »

I know ;-)

The V0G bit even got into a draft timetable- I have it on my laptop at home. However, they would need to go on to Bridgend as well. In fact, if there has been some co-operation here, the service could be operated by existing Arriva mainline staff. At present, the crew changes at Cardiff with VL staff leaving and main-line staff taking the train onto Bridgend.

The only thing that would worry me is that if the route is tacked onto the end of a longer route, the quality of service would go down the pan and cancellations would occur. Unless, there was a huge wad of slack stuck in the timetable (like the Maesteg service, that dwells at Cardiff for ages).

This idea popped into my mind because I have recently met with the ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company))) franchise manager. He totally blanked me re: the 5x 150 unit transfers (what a suprise), but took a great deal time explaining that WAG» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) pay for the trains on the VoG and that Arriva simply crew them- he also pointed out that WAG could arrange for any TOC to run it. When I mentioned that FGW (First Great Western) had the VoG route in a draft timetable, he look suprised that I knew this and commented that this might still be rumbling about.

This is purely speculation, but this could be another option to the rolling stock issue. This would mean that WAG would have shiney refurbed 3 coach 158s or 150s running out to Cardiff airport. This would mean that no Welsh taxpayer's money has been wasted too!!

I don't think we have heard the last of this one folks! As I commute on this route, I may have to face the fact that I am turning purple (arrrgh!).

Daniel
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 10:09:35 by DanielP » Logged
vacman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2530


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2008, 15:03:08 »

The DafT specified how many units the franchise needed in their greatest hour of wisdom and therefore it was not necessary for FGW (First Great Western) to renew the lease on 8 150s...

I'd say as nice as more 158s would be, we aren't going to get any wheras we were going to get some 150s but apparantly not until 2010 so we will continue to suffer.  Roll Eyes

Why should FGW buy new trains anyway when they will loose the franchise in a few years time anyway. If the DafT really cared they wouldn't simply throw around stupid insult at FGW when THEY ARE the problem, instead they would tackle the route problem and build some bloody trains and not stand around chatting about it all bloody year  Undecided Undecided Undecided

Other TOCs (Train Operating Company) have, and do...

It's not like first have 3 franchises that could use new stock if they decided to become a rosco as well, and buy there own stock. And could even lease them to whoever gets the franchise come the end of the current one. And i'm sure the competition comission would welcome another rosco to sort out the stupidly high prices some trains cost to lease.
Yes, but other TOC's don't have to pay ^1bn to the DFT (Department for Transport)! Oh, and I think a tongue in cheek "told you so" is in order, my source is very reliable  Wink
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2008, 15:06:10 »

Oh, and I think a tongue in cheek "told you so" is in order, my source is very reliable  Wink

I did think of you earlier.....

Hats off to vacman for the prediction
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Shazz
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 534


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2008, 15:07:03 »

The DafT specified how many units the franchise needed in their greatest hour of wisdom and therefore it was not necessary for FGW (First Great Western) to renew the lease on 8 150s...

I'd say as nice as more 158s would be, we aren't going to get any wheras we were going to get some 150s but apparantly not until 2010 so we will continue to suffer.  Roll Eyes

Why should FGW buy new trains anyway when they will loose the franchise in a few years time anyway. If the DafT really cared they wouldn't simply throw around stupid insult at FGW when THEY ARE the problem, instead they would tackle the route problem and build some bloody trains and not stand around chatting about it all bloody year  Undecided Undecided Undecided

Other TOCs (Train Operating Company) have, and do...

It's not like first have 3 franchises that could use new stock if they decided to become a rosco as well, and buy there own stock. And could even lease them to whoever gets the franchise come the end of the current one. And i'm sure the competition comission would welcome another rosco to sort out the stupidly high prices some trains cost to lease.
Yes, but other TOC's don't have to pay ^1bn to the DFT (Department for Transport)! Oh, and I think a tongue in cheek "told you so" is in order, my source is very reliable  Wink

I thought these still hadnt gone anywhere due to the daft blocking it? Wink
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2008, 15:09:00 »

I thought these still hadnt gone anywhere due to the daft blocking it? Wink

See link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1862.msg13465#msg13465
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Shazz
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 534


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2008, 15:12:36 »


still, says nothing of the 150s, it mentions new leases on 5 3 cars for the ports>cardiff

oh, and MTLS (More Train Less Strain) need to learn the difference between turnover and operating profit.

I do agree with danielp though, ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company)))/ the WAG» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) will probably seek some sort of compensation package if it does happen.

EDIT: Just saw the fgw link, the bbc do like to be sketchy with there news, cant wait to see what the WAG think of this next time they're in session.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 15:16:20 by Shazz » Logged
vacman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2530


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2008, 15:15:27 »

FGW (First Great Western) have clearly stated that they are to recieve 5 class 150 units in their press release. Trust me, it's going to happen!
Logged
DanielP
Full Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2008, 15:24:46 »

From those who know, are the ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company)))-FGW (First Great Western) stock transfers back on then? If so when. When I went by Canton this morning, there were 3x Anglia liveried sprinters in the yard + about four other ex-Centrals that have been repainted......

Arriva are still very quiet!!!!

Daniel
Logged
12hoursunday
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 267


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2008, 15:40:49 »

From those who know, are the ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company)))-FGW (First Great Western) stock transfers back on then? If so when. When I went by Canton this morning, there were 3x Anglia liveried sprinters in the yard + about four other ex-Centrals that have been repainted......

Arriva are still very quiet!!!!

Daniel


The sets due to be transfered were with ATW but old stock used by Anglia!
Logged
DanielP
Full Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2008, 15:52:14 »

Cheers....I know which, but not when!!

Daniel
Logged
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]
  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 customers 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 to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page