158 Merry-go-round

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

Just found this story from the Western Daily Press. Though a little dated (March 31) it does give some insight into the December move up North of 12 158's:

http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145786&command=displayContent&sourceNode=221018&contentPK=17004636&folderPk=103495&pNodeId=221019

Rail watchdogs fear another 'great West train robbery' is looming after it emerged 12 trains being operated by First Great Western are to be sent to another English train company.Lobby group Transport 2000 said yesterday that it feared the loss of the trains would add to the levels of overcrowding experienced on some peak time trains run by Swindon-based First Great Western (FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) since it cut the number of seats on local services in December 2006.

FGW bosses insisted an equivalent number of trains would be leased from rolling stock companies to cover the loss of the dozen Class 158 trains that will be sent to York-based Northern Rail in December.

But critics remain unconvinced, arguing the move is another example of the "Cinderella" railway in the West suffering while public transport in other parts of the country prospers.

Northern Rail is to receive 30 extra trains from around the country by December to help counter a 19 per cent increase in passenger growth it has experienced since 2004.

Transport 2000 spokes- man David Redgewell said: "Yet again we are seeing a great train robbery, this time with the North robbing the South West. "It's a scandal that trains are being taken from First Great Western at a time when passengers have been suffering from overcrowding on fewer, shorter trains that are packed like sardines.

"Passenger levels are growing in the South West too - but it's being stifled because the capacity is simply just not there to get more people on trains.

"This is clearly a political issue because it is the northern Labour heartlands that are benefiting from extra trains while the South West suffers.

"I would urge all the MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) in the region to start lobbying hard for this type of train robbery to stop."

FGW regional manager Andrew Griffiths said West commuters would not suffer as a result of its trains being sent to York-based Northern Rail in December this year.

Mr Griffiths said: "These units were always going to go off-lease in December. Eventually we'll be getting others to come in their place.

"There's certainly no question of passengers facing any cuts in services or less seats being available.

"The 158s [that are going north] were on short-term hire to us - the leasing company has obviously found another home for them.

"We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet."

Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East and a critic of public transport levels and road congestion in the region, said she had been given reassurances by FGW that no further cuts in rolling stock levels were imminent.

She said: "When I met with First Great Western recently they assured me that the problems suffered during December and January had been sorted and there would be no more cuts to services.

"But I will certainly monitor the situation to ensure that the trains being lost to Northern Rail are replaced with at least the equivalent number being returned to First Great Western."
ENDS

Note the slightly ominous comment from Andrew Griffiths "We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet." My question is from where exactly? To my knowledge almost all spare 158s have been allocated. I understand the FGW want to lease all their 158 stock from one company which is understandable when it comes to servicing etc. But where will the replacement 158's come from Central perhaps??

I know where there are some 142s going cheap!!!!!!

[grahame]

Just found this story from the Western Daily Press. Though a little dated (March 31) it does give some insight into the December move up North of 12 158's ....

Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Bristol East and a critic of public transport levels and road congestion in the region, said she had been given reassurances by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) that no further cuts in rolling stock levels were imminent.

She said: "When I met with First Great Western recently they assured me that the problems suffered during December and January had been sorted and there would be no more cuts to services.

FGW have a great publicity machine and, give them credit, they have sorted out some issues.

What would really sort out matters?   A service that runs, at or near the reliability level specified across all lines, with trains with adequate capacity - only occasional short standing sessions and NEVER passengers being denied boarding.   And a service that runs when people want to travel at a price they can afford.

Some examples of things that are still not right from my recent, personal experience.
* Over 16% of Southbound services from Chippenham to Trowbridge cancelled in the last week
* Gross overcrowding at Easter, with passengers being denied boarding, train after train
* Lack of service when it's required from Swindon across Wiltshire
* Buy-on-the-day Monday to Friday return fares to London up from under 50 pounds to over 100 pounds from Melksham
* West Wilts to Swindon commuter train rescheduled to give far too long a day.  If you're a commuter from Trowbridge, you're away fromthe town for over 12 hours - that's dreadful for a nation that normally works an 8 hour day.

Oddly enough, I'm NOT requesting a step back to the pre-Decemeber timetable, but it does strike me that all these issues went pear-shaped from Monday, Deccember 11th 2006.

Sorry - but Kerry has been fed a pack of lies as to the general picture, and some very specific 'good news' stories with all the bad news swept under the carpet still.

[Lee]

Here's what I dont get :

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) regional manager Andrew Griffiths said West commuters would not suffer as a result of its trains being sent to York-based Northern Rail in December this year.

Mr Griffiths said: "These units were always going to go off-lease in December. Eventually we'll be getting others to come in their place.

"There's certainly no question of passengers facing any cuts in services or less seats being available.

"The 158s [that are going north] were on short-term hire to us - the leasing company has obviously found another home for them.

"We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet."

Note the slightly ominous comment from Andrew Griffiths "We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet." My question is from where exactly? To my knowledge almost all spare 158s have been allocated. I understand the FGW want to lease all their 158 stock from one company which is understandable when it comes to servicing etc. But where will the replacement 158's come from Central perhaps??

I know where there are some 142s going cheap!!!!!!

"Eventually we'll be getting others to come in their place."

"We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet."

At a West Wiltshire District Council meeting on March 20 2007 (click on http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1685.msg4405#msg4405) Glenda Lamont & Andrew Griffiths both said that they didnt need the units that are going off - lease in December to provide their contracted service.

Whats changed

[Timmer]

"Eventually we'll be getting others to come in their place."

"We're expecting to get other 158s to replace the ones that are going but the details have not been finalised yet."

At a West Wiltshire District Council meeting on March 20 2007 (click on http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1685.msg4405#msg4405) Glenda Lamont & Andrew Griffiths both said that they didnt need the units that are going off - lease in December to provide their contracted service.

Whats changed

Looking at your comment Lee I'd say that yes they would have enough stock to provide the contracted service but that involves running short trains which as was shown, and still is both on weekdays and weekends, would be grossly overcrowded. This is because when the contract was drawn up it is evident that no one projected ahead what demand would be when the franchise started operating which was in effect at the December timetable change as the old Wessex timetable was still in operation before then.

As long as FGW^▸ (First Great Western) honour their contract with the government they are guaranteed their franchise extention as they would turn to the government and say we've operated what we've been told to run. It's upto you the government to provide the extra rolling stock or review premium payments if you want to improve the lot of the passenger. Why should FGW care, they havent got to fight a general election!

When you also take into account the ceastion of the Westbury-Southampton locals come December you can probably see why they can say they have enough stock to run what they agreed to run. However if they and the government don't want serious unrest on the railways again in December, they have better find some stock to take the place of the departing 158's.

I do think that FGW do still have one bargaining chip to hand and that is the 180s. Say they were to go to Scotland, that would free up some 158s from up there that could come down south. The 180s have yet to be found a home and personally I think they would make excellent units to operate between Cardiff-Portsmouth. Dream on Tim I hear you say!

You can see why National Express walked away from the Greater Western Franchise negoiations. They saw what was coming but there was no way First were gonna walk away from Great Western and have they done a GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways) and bid at any cost? The one major difference is FGW is backed by a much more stable empire in First than GNER was in having Sea Containers. If that company was not in the mess that it was, it would have been able to keep GNER, allbeit at an almost certain loss, but thats way off topic.

[Jim]

I do think that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) do still have one bargaining chip to hand and that is the 180s. Say they were to go to Scotland, that would free up some 158s from up there that could come down south. The 180s have yet to be found a home and personally I think they would make excellent units to operate between Cardiff-Portsmouth. Dream on Tim I hear you say!

To be honest, it is not suprising lots of people are dreaming/want this! I would love it, especially 5 coaches to play with, instead of 2! The 100 MPH running wouldn't give too much of a timing advantage though IMO^▸ (in my opinion)

[Timmer]

I do think that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) do still have one bargaining chip to hand and that is the 180s. Say they were to go to Scotland, that would free up some 158s from up there that could come down south. The 180s have yet to be found a home and personally I think they would make excellent units to operate between Cardiff-Portsmouth. Dream on Tim I hear you say!

To be honest, it is not suprising lots of people are dreaming/want this! I would love it, especially 5 coaches to play with, instead of 2! The 100 MPH running wouldn't give too much of a timing advantage though IMO^▸ (in my opinion)

Well after making that comment Jim, I read in next month's Modern Railways that FGW are in discussion with Angel Trains about the possibility of keeping them. As much as we would like to see them operating Cardiff-Portsmouth, the line doesnt really give them much opportunity to run at their full potential as you say.

The short article goes onto highlight that the Dft is keen for FGW to retain the 180s to save it from the further embarrassment of perfectly good rolling stock being left in sidings whilst there is gross overcrowding. I think it was criminal SWT^▸ (South West Trains) being allowed to release 442s. These are wonderful pieces of rolling stock that aren't being used whilst Portsmouth-London passengers have to put up with 450s which weren't really meant for long distance services. Sorry going off topic again!

[Jim]

I think the 442's is something we both agree on, posibally for different reasons though!

[Lee]

Source quote :

"Seems to be the latest rumour that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) might well be keeping the 180's. Modern Railways has reported this in the latest edition. Various reasons being mooted: DafT* don't want the embarrassment of almost-new trains going into store / No other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will touch them with the proverbial barge pole /  Angel Trains are offering a cheap lease deal rather than see them stored. Or possibly all 3 reasons.

If it turns out to be true it should reduce the chance of having to take on some of the ex-Northern 142's.

* sometimes known as DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)"

[Timmer]

Source quote :

"Seems to be the latest rumour that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) might well be keeping the 180's. Modern Railways has reported this in the latest edition. Various reasons being mooted: DafT* don't want the embarrassment of almost-new trains going into store / No other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will touch them with the proverbial barge pole /  Angel Trains are offering a cheap lease deal rather than see them stored. Or possibly all 3 reasons.

If it turns out to be true it should reduce the chance of having to take on some of the ex-Northern 142's.

* sometimes known as DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)"

Yes that rumour was reported on ukrailway the other day as well. How true it is we shall have to see. Even mentioned them running Cardiff-Portsmouth but I would be highly surprised if they did...though it would do wonders for this line having some decent length stock and the return of 1st class on this route.

Yes the spectre of those lovely Northern 142's making the journey south looms large but imagine the press it would get. "FGW swap modern 158s for buses on wheels".

[CJ Harrison]

As far as I am concerned the DafT (I shall use this from now on  ) should jolly well pay for the class 180s to stay on the Great Western network. They are being given ^1bn+ of money by First - that's money that comes from us, the fare paying public. Personally I expect something in return for what is, in effect, a tax on rail travel. What I do not expect is for large proportions of the money paid by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) passengers to be diverted to other franchises (i.e. ones that run through areas where there are many Labour MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)) or to be wasted on nonsense schemes that DafT wants to pursue.

We keep hearing about these 1,000 carriages which are supposed to materialise at some unspecified point in the dim and distant future. That's jam tomorrow. Funding for the class 180s to be kept with FGW is something that could make life better today.

It would, of course, be an absolute scandal if the 180s went into storage when there was massive overcrowding. And it would make DafT even more of a laughing stock than they already are.

[CJ Harrison]

They saw what was coming but there was no way First were gonna walk away from Great Western and have they done a GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways) and bid at any cost? The one major difference is FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is backed by a much more stable empire in First than GNER was in having Sea Containers. If that company was not in the mess that it was, it would have been able to keep GNER, allbeit at an almost certain loss, but thats way off topic.

No, I don't think they have done a GNER.

The financials for Greater Western are challenging but they do stack up even with reasonably conservative growth estimates. Financially, GNER was a different case altogether. They put in an overly ambitious bid on near impossible growth targets with no margin for error. The premium payment phasing was wrong and the financial flexibility of the franchise - i.e. the amount of financial engineering they could do - was minimal. It only took one or two adverse things to push them over the edge and with a weak parent company they had absolutely nothing to fall back on.

The thing that gets me is how DafT did not recognise the weaknesses in their original bid. Actually I do understand it, they saw pound signs and all logic went out of the window...

[Lee]

As far as I am concerned the DafT (I shall use this from now on  ) should jolly well pay for the class 180s to stay on the Great Western network. They are being given ^1bn+ of money by First - that's money that comes from us, the fare paying public. Personally I expect something in return for what is, in effect, a tax on rail travel. What I do not expect is for large proportions of the money paid by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) passengers to be diverted to other franchises (i.e. ones that run through areas where there are many Labour MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)) or to be wasted on nonsense schemes that DafT wants to pursue.

We keep hearing about these 1,000 carriages which are supposed to materialise at some unspecified point in the dim and distant future. That's jam tomorrow. Funding for the class 180s to be kept with FGW is something that could make life better today.

It would, of course, be an absolute scandal if the 180s went into storage when there was massive overcrowding. And it would make DafT even more of a laughing stock than they already are.

Here is an interesting quote (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/05/network_rail_drops_plan_to_clo.html#more

"Between 2009 and 2014 Network Rail expects the government to authorise up to 50 additional carriages to strengthen peak hour services on routes into Manchester and Liverpool, together with lengthening platforms where necessary to take 4-car trains. New platforms are proposed at Salford Central to allow Victoria to Liverpool services to call there, plus the relocation of Salford Crescent station to provide extra capacity for Bolton and Calder Valley services and offer improved interchange opportunities across central Manchester."

[BandHcommuter]

As far as I am concerned the DafT (I shall use this from now on  ) should jolly well pay for the class 180s to stay on the Great Western network.

Presumably the "DafT" means government funding, i.e. the taxpayer. We all pay in the end, so it is a matter of trade offs between competing demands for a finite pot of cash (or increased subsidy through taxation).

This is interesting, because we all believe that our own train service is the most demanding of public subsidy, especially if we have to put up with crowded trains or road congestion. Yet from my perspective as an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) commuter into central London, I suffer far less misery than my colleagues who use the underground or commuter services into Waterloo, Cannon Street etc.

So we get into the debate as to who is more worthy of direct or cross subsidy from a general economic perspective. The reality is that some of us will pay one way or another -

Discuss!

[Lee]

So we get into the debate as to who is more worthy of direct or cross subsidy from a general economic perspective. The reality is that some of us will pay one way or another -

Discuss!

We could also get into the debate as to who is more worthy of direct or cross subsidy from a general political perspective. The reality is that some of us will pay one way or another......

Discuss!

[tramway]

180's on an inter regional express service, what could be better solution for both passengers and FGW^▸ (First Great Western). Passengers get a level of comfort and speed they deserve and FGW ( and DafT) get an immediate publicity boost to show they are doing something positive at last.

If there is one thing that would get people (back) onto the railway that would be the one. I appreciate that they would be working well within their capacity, but surely there are many routes HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s travel on that rarely allow them 125 mph running.

I suspect though that if ever I find myself travelling on one from Trowbridge I'll have a nasty surprise when my alarm clock goes off.