Why is FGW run as 3 companies?

[whole diary]

[Zoe]

Hi, is there any reason why even though FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are more than 2 years into the franchise, it's still effectively run as 3 companies (HSS^▸ (High Speed Services), London & Thames Valley and West) still based on the three franchises that were merged.  This does appear to be a leftover from the 1980s sectorisation policy.

There is one advantage of this policy though:  A 142 will never reach Paddington.

[Electric train]

It does take time to unpick the mess of secterisation but even in the days of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) the Western Region was split into operational divisions

[Zoe]

It does take time to unpick the mess of secterisation but even in the days of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) the Western Region was split into operational divisions

Yes but the divisions were geographic and not business sectors?

[dog box]

Hi, is there any reason why even though FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are more than 2 years into the franchise, it's still effectively run as 3 companies (HSS^▸ (High Speed Services), London & Thames Valley and West) still based on the three franchises that were merged.  This does appear to be a leftover from the 1980s sectorisation policy.

There is one advantage of this policy though:  A 142 will never reach Paddington.

they have got as far as Reading!!!!

[The SprinterMeister]

There is one advantage of this policy though:  A 142 will never reach Paddington.

Wouldn't bet on it!

[The SprinterMeister]

Hi, is there any reason why even though FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are more than 2 years into the franchise, it's still effectively run as 3 companies (HSS^▸ (High Speed Services), London & Thames Valley and West) still based on the three franchises that were merged.  This does appear to be a leftover from the 1980s sectorisation policy.

There is of course the little question of the traincrews and other staff being on different rates of pay and conditions of service. In a nutshell you won't get 'big trains' driven for 'small train' rates of pay. End of.

The conductor / train manager situation was made a little more complicated by the introduction of three different substantive grades of guard based on suitability under the 'traincrew concept' 20 years ago (this coming Friday in fact!) However there was only the one grade of driver.

[smithy]

Hi, is there any reason why even though FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are more than 2 years into the franchise, it's still effectively run as 3 companies (HSS^▸ (High Speed Services), London & Thames Valley and West) still based on the three franchises that were merged.  This does appear to be a leftover from the 1980s sectorisation policy.

There is one advantage of this policy though:  A 142 will never reach Paddington.

quite simply it is down to money!

fgw will never fully harmonise despite the fact it makes sense for example all crew sign all traction so less chance of cancellations down to no train crew.

part of the franchise commitment was to put an offer on the table and not actually harmonise,which as far as i am aware has been done and kicked out so all talks now stalled.

[welsharagorn]

Hi, is there any reason why even though FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are more than 2 years into the franchise, it's still effectively run as 3 companies (HSS^▸ (High Speed Services), London & Thames Valley and West) still based on the three franchises that were merged.  This does appear to be a leftover from the 1980s sectorisation policy.

There is one advantage of this policy though:  A 142 will never reach Paddington.

quite simply it is down to money!

fgw will never fully harmonise despite the fact it makes sense for example all crew sign all traction so less chance of cancellations down to no train crew.

part of the franchise commitment was to put an offer on the table and not actually harmonise,which as far as i am aware has been done and kicked out so all talks now stalled.

Although I can empathise with the "common Sense" argument, there are practicalities to the "Crew sign everywhere" approach.

As you rightly suggested traincrew have to sign all routes that they work over, and similarly have to retain knowledge of those routes.  If all drivers / guards signed all routes the workload would be spread so thin that route retention would be impossible.  So a balance of workload is inevitable!

That said, whilst i don't think harmonisation is an easy task, i believe First are committed to it, and are indeed still trying, as we've got posters in the depots saying as much! 

Personally I feel that with the recruitment drive undertaken, and the talks (maybe) progressing, there may be more flexibility in the future?   

[Lee]

Welcome to the forum, welsharagorn

[The SprinterMeister]

Although I can empathise with the "common Sense" argument, there are practicalities to the "Crew sign everywhere" approach.

As you rightly suggested traincrew have to sign all routes that they work over, and similarly have to retain knowledge of those routes.  If all drivers / guards signed all routes the workload would be spread so thin that route retention would be impossible.  So a balance of workload is inevitable!

That said, whilst i don't think harmonisation is an easy task, i believe First are committed to it, and are indeed still trying, as we've got posters in the depots saying as much! 

Personally I feel that with the recruitment drive undertaken, and the talks (maybe) progressing, there may be more flexibility in the future?   

The same issue applies to traction knowledge. Even under BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) not all links at every depot signed HST^▸ (High Speed Train) traction. The drivers were placed in 'Links' or base rosters. The Links were based progessively on seniority and it was only the higher links that signed HST's. Certain more junior links also signed them but not the routes to Paddington, the basis for this was that the more junior staff worked HST's to / from maintainance depots at night, therefore nightwork was the principle junior drivers workload.

With the seperation of GWT from W&W^▸ (Wales and West - (before Wessex Trains!)), the drivers were split between the two companies on a choice basis, but where this was not possible seniority was used instead. Therefore the nascent GWT, later FGW^▸ (First Great Western) got most of the older drivers, who have in turn been repaced over time. The GWT / FGW links also have to cover their own night shifts, as there is no possibility of using 'West' men who very properly removed HST knowledge from their cards at the time the depots were split in 1994. And are now on a lower basic rate of pay. Several older drivers in fact opted out of HST work at the time of the depot splits due to the amount of nightwork that was required to be covered by the GWT / HST links.

Units however have the eminent and considerable advantage that they can be coupled together and taken into the depots in long formations with only one driver, therefore much less nightwork is required.

Quite a bit to sort out there I think!

[Zoe]

With the seperation of GWT from W&W^▸ (Wales and West - (before Wessex Trains!)), the drivers were split between the two companies on a choice basis, but where this was not possible seniority was used instead.

Were they not split into Intercity and Regional Railways at sectorisation?

[The SprinterMeister]

With the seperation of GWT from W&W^▸ (Wales and West - (before Wessex Trains!)), the drivers were split between the two companies on a choice basis, but where this was not possible seniority was used instead.

Were they not split into Intercity and Regional Railways at sectorisation?

In most cases no. In the case of Exeter depot, the workload was predominently what one might call Regional Railways work, but Intercity, NSE^▸ (Network South East), Freight, departmental and Mail trains were all worked as well. Taken as a whole this other work was in fact far more predominant than the Reggy Rail work.

It was only at privatisation that the depots were split and such other work that remained by then were taken in house by the other companies. In fact Exeter Wales and West continued to work EWS^▸ (English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd, now known as DB Schenker Rail (UK^▸ (United Kingdom))) traffic under subcontract until EWS opened a depot at Plymouth in 1999 / 2000 to take the work in house.