Who is to blame?

[whole diary]

[CJ Harrison]

It is all very well to complain about First Great Western, however, the company is categorically not to blame for the timetable changes made in December 2006 ^ it was the Department for Transport which made those modifications and then built them into the franchise specification. While First Great Western has a degree of input into the timetable planning process, at the end of the day it is a supplier to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and has to abide by the wishes of the government.

It is also untrue that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can simply add services to the existing timetable without the Department^s say so: the Department for Transport has to issue derogations for every alteration and deviation to the specified timetable. Moreover, since First has to pay back an enormous sum of money for running the franchise it has to make sure the services it does run are economical. In other words, even with the permission of the Department it has to make sure services pay for themselves. Again, the financials come down to the government which could have opted for a franchise specification which charged a lower premium to the train operating company and made more allowance for additional capacity. It didn^t, it opted for the specification we have now.

I am not an apologist for First and I think, as they themselves readily admit, there are things they could have done better ^ especially on the engineering and maintenance side where they are responsible. However, I find it a gross injustice that having messed around with the timetable, the Department for Transport are now denying any culpability and are seeking to place the blame at First Great Western^s door. It^s an out and out lie and it^s unfair to First Great Western, its staff, it shareholders and, ultimately, its customers.

For those interested, I have written more on my blog: http://firstgreatwestern.blogspot.com/

[grahame]

CJ, Welcome to the forums, and many thanks for providing some fuel for our discussions.   I've had a look through some of your blog (indeed, I was very tempted to copy large chunks of it but that would be against copyright) and you put the case - very well - for pointing fingers at the Department for Transport.  Very little I can fault in your writings.

BUT (that had to come, didn't it?) First put their name in the bidding process to a flawed operation - they chose to do so and to some extent or other accept the responsiblity.  They took the King's shilling, without duress and they negotiated their contract.  I get offered jobs from time to time that I'll turn around and say "no bid" to, or "I can do that IF it's a bit different" and that option, was, I'm sure open to First.  Now that they have accepted the contract, they accept responsibility - they're not children where we can say "never mind", kiss and make up.

In balance (ah, so difficult in a debate), I think I come down slighly more to laying the current ills at the door of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) rather than First, but now overwhelmingly so.   And I see both organisations as the legitimate recipients of suggestions, complains, requests for change; not only are both responsible for the current situation and service levels, but both have to work together to resolve it in the best possible way.

I was at the Bradford on Avon celebrations (evening) on Friday, and I looked forward to the 200th anniversary.  Unless something better comes along to replace the train, let's hope that we DO have a train service then and that it's not been overspend, overmilked and micromanaged out of existance.

[CJ Harrison]

Hi Grahame, thanks for the welcome!

I can see your point. I do believe, however, that the franchising process is at fault. The way the government sets the parameters ^ to deliver maximum revenue at the very minimum of cost but with little scope for innovation or long term investment ^ naturally results in cuts and poor service.

There is some scope for negotiation, and I am sure First did enter into some. There is no way we would be privy to this, of course, but it is probable that the service we have now is actually better than that the Department first specified: we know from the initial invitation to tender that the government wanted to cut the sleeper services and reduce services to Cardiff, for example. However, in a competitive bidding environment ^ where each company is understandably desperate to win ^ negotiation is, by is very nature, limited. This is especially so as the power of government is ultimate, it^s not like negotiating with another commercial company where they also have to consider things such as public reaction and brand equity ^ the government doesn^t bother about such things.

Yes, it is true that, at the end of the day, First accepted the contract. They could have turned round and say, no thanks. But that, commercially, is almost impossible. How would they have justified it to shareholders? In any case, it wouldn^t have changed the situation we have now: no matter who won the contract, they would still be dealing with all of the present issues. For me, the bottom line is this: the government is the contract manager and owner. It has complete and unfettered power to change things, to specify new trains, to charge franchisees less so they have more money to invest and so forth. The train operating companies are only contract providers who have to, ultimately, abide by the wishes of the government.

Finally, thanks for looking at my blog. So long as you credit me - and a link to the blog would be nice ;-) - please feel free to copy bits from it as you wish.

[grahame]

I'm "bumping up" this thread ... and posting an advert for you, CJ, to your recent blog entries.

http://firstgreatwestern.blogspot.com/

Neither FGW^▸ (First Great Western), nor the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), (nor in Wiltshire, my part of the world the county council's decvision makers who are the local transport authority) come out smelling of roses, but I do have to agree with you that FGW get a whole load of criticism for things that are outside their control.  They also get rightful blame for some things that are in their control or reponsibility, and for things which were in their control when they submitted their bid for the franchise.

Truely, the real 'blame' can be placed - if we need to place blame - on elements of the system. There are many good people at Wiltshire County Council, the DfT and First who are doing their best with the system and what they've got. Alas, there are also people at each place who are all too ready to use the confusion of the system to pass the buck - to divert attenstion from themselves - or to use the system to the disadvantage of the traveller or wannabe traveller.