One or two other very familiar forum names were present - others are welcome to add what they recall being said.
*hands up* - yes, I attended.
Was there any information / discussion concerning the circumstances which resulted in the PAD» <>RDG‡ infrastructure ending up in such a parlous state?
Oh - hang on - the parlous state of the overhead electric out to Airport Junction was referred to as being put in on the cheap / to a low level spec just for electric trains to Heathrow and now used much more, and by it wearing out. Blame for further west problems of flooding was put onto climate change.
The increase in services - was it 17% increase in tonnage / 38% increase in services, or the other way around? - with no increase in maintenance or pre-emptive improvements - have basically taken their toll. Those lines weren't designed to take the full-on Elizabeth line services. Nor the silly weight of the
IETs▸ ordered (by a now deceased civil servant better employed producing rail atlases! because he didn't entertain bimode locos hauled rolling stock!)
2. There is an annual financial plan for this (so no easy way to plan years ahead) - a six year contract but the DfT» can terminate after three years (not sure if First can - probably)
Interestingly, the slide to which Mark was talking to referred to a 3-year contract, and Mark corrected that verbally. I wonder whether that was because the likely winner of the next election has already said they'll let the contracts expire at their earliest available date? If so,
GWR▸ might be the first to go?
4. The GWR brand is now owned by the government and the name leased / loaned back to First. This is done / means that if First cease to operate the services, they can still be called "Great Western Railway" whoever is operating them. You can see a similar thing in action with TransPennine Express - name still there but no longer First Group
And
LNER» , I guess? The only surprise for me of the whole meeting! I wonder what recompense was provided for the DfT picking up their trading name as a state asset?
6. I am personally speculating that trains coming into the franchise will directly or indirectly fill the diagrams still run by HSTs▸ rather than provide new diagrams of strengthening of existing ones.
I think you're right - Mark was *very* clear about the fact that *anything* extra & not specifically requisitioned by the DfT isn't going to happen. The CCCF funding I suspect has to be agreed by the DfT project by project too.
7. The fast charging experiment on the Greenford branch - see how it goes. Mention of Marlow, Henley, Gunnislake and Falmouth as other potential for similar and of potential overhead rather than trackside / 3rd rail type chargers. But clear note that no funding is in place for more than Greenford. First owns the D76 ex Vivarail and took on a significant staffing too.
I enquired about the battery trains & got the answer that GWR owned those D76s plus paraphernalia, that Greenford was funded by the DfT but any further services were going to need requisitioning by the DfT & GWR weren't going to invest.
8. There are electric trains more readily available that diesel ones for future services, and mention made of electrification to Oxford, Bedwyn and down Filton Bank which could release diesel stock to help other services out.
Marcus I thought confirmed that Filton Bank was a given for wires extension, but otherwise said there were no other plans for CP7.
I felt that it was a very good meeting, Mark answered everything very honestly - but people even then kept asking about new stations here there & everywhere. Some don't keep up with the general scene it seems.
