Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 08:15 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
- Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
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
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
06:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
07:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
08:13 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:00 Gatwick Airport to Reading
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
04:54 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:23 Hereford to London Paddington
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
07:24 Exmouth to Paignton
07:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance
07:40 Bristol Temple Meads to Westbury
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
08:41 Westbury to Bristol Temple Meads
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
Delayed
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
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 29, 2024, 08:19:03 *
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
[82] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[76] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[74] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[67] Return of the BRUTE?
[57] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[46] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise  (Read 5775 times)
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« on: June 17, 2011, 10:56:58 »

Yesterday, in a parliamentary written reply, Norman Baker, Under-secretary of State for Transport confirmed a fine of ^350,000.

Can anyone find this on the Government website?

Chiltern have welcomed the drop in fine from that proposed, and accept that they broke their franchise rules in 2009.
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2011, 11:47:00 »

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-12/2011-12.pdf

Took a bit of finding - they've rejigged their website...

Paul
Logged
devon_metro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5175



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2011, 15:52:33 »

How is fining a company at all beneficial to passengers? Arriva will only find cost-cutting measures elsewhere to fund this!
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2011, 15:54:53 »

Not if they want to retain the franchise in 10 years time....
Logged
bobm
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9810



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2011, 18:02:12 »

I think it is particularly unfortunate that Chiltern have been fined given all the work they have done (and are continuing to do) improving the infrastructure and services in their area. Bit of a kick in the teeth really.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2011, 19:01:28 »

Sorry, but they shouldn't have given their precious WSMR (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) a raid on their fareboxes @ Banbury & Leamington then.....
Logged
bobm
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9810



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2011, 19:07:10 »

I suspect that's what triggered the largest part of the fine but things like a waiting shelter being a month late is hardly the end of the world.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2011, 19:12:42 »

No, the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) was using those to cover off the boxes. I reckon the raids / stops were the real reason.
Logged
Steve Bray
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 207


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2011, 19:32:49 »

And how did the irregularities come to light? Did any passengers complain? Would the fine have accelerated the decision to withdraw the W&S (Wrexham and Shropshire (Open Access Operator)) services?
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2011, 19:48:33 »

Yes, pasengers did complain, I heard, to both the company & the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about).

I suspect the ORR was talking to Chiltern & their owners well before the ORR made it public. The loss of the open stops @ those two stations was probably the final nail in WSMRs (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) coffin. As the press release stated on closure, the company had been losing over ^1million annually and losing the fairbox money back to Chiltern persuaded all that they were never going to break even without farebox raids *somewhere*

Shame really, but there just wasn't the peak pax from Shropshire to keep it going at that intesity of staff & kit.

Anyone know what's become of the Wrexham depot? Who owns it? Has it reverted to the Welsh Government, who funded it?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 19:57:00 by ChrisB » Logged
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2011, 20:26:09 »

I suspect that's what triggered the largest part of the fine but things like a waiting shelter being a month late is hardly the end of the world.

A bit of consistency from ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)/DfT» (Department for Transport - about) wouldn't go amiss when it comes to handing out fines for late delivery of franchise commitments. Both Chiltern and CrossCountry have been fined for late delivery of specific commitments. Yet FGW (First Great Western) have so far escaped any punishment or public censure for failing to meet their franchise commitment deadlines with regard to CIS (Customer Information System), CCTV (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) and PA (Public Address).

Are First Group just better than DB» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)/Arriva at keeping the politicians and Sir Humphreys sweet?

No, the ORR was using those to cover off the boxes. I reckon the raids / stops were the real reason.

One assumes that that is personal opinion. Would the ORR/Dft even be allowed to use that reason for a fine? The Railways Act 1993 is the legislation used for such fines and it is unclear from that act that such 'collusion' between operators amounts to a breach of franchise operation. Neither side is saying publicly that Chiltern were fined for allowing it's sister company to abstract revenue.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 20:31:23 by bignosemac » Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2011, 21:24:38 »

Maybe Chiltern did a deal to achieve a lower charge? The DfT» (Department for Transport - about) certainly hint at that with the PSR (Permanent Speed Restriction) service being operated by WSMR (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) being a major part of the fine. Also, the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) refused to allow that to cintine & required Chiltern to go back to limited stops in May11 if they hadn't folded first.

Either way, that would have been the end of the farebox raids, meaning further losses, hence the decision to fold
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2011, 22:39:55 »

When I checked the track access applications a while back I noticed that in the period immediately after the WSMR (Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway) 'open calls' it was pretty clear that Chiltern knew they'd made an error.

This paragraph in the 75th supplementary (Mar 2010) for instance, suggests they had already been made aware:

Quote
The changes arise from the fact that Chiltern will breach and potentially commit an event of default in its Franchise Agreement if after May 2010 it continues to rely on WSMR services to partially fulfil its PSR (Permanent Speed Restriction) at Banbury and Leamington Spa. If approved the changes sought by this 75th STAA will enable Chiltern to comply with its PSR without relying on WSMR, and will avoid the risk of breach or default under its Franchise Agreement.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2010/2010.03.26%20chiltern%2075th%20sa%20-%20consultation%20closed%2015%20april%202010/form%2022%2075th%20may%202010%20260310.pdf
Logged
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2011, 23:03:25 »

Thank-you for that linked document paul7755. That does rather hint at Chiltern having their wrists slapped for breaching their Passenger Service Requirement.

Still begs the question as to why ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)/DfT» (Department for Transport - about) didn't include that potential breach in the reasons for issuing the fine to Chiltern.

Smoke and Mirrors......?  Tongue Wink Grin
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2011, 07:49:27 »

Nothing 'potential' about it.

That STAA was correcting the breach that, as the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) states in their documentation, occurred when they introduced a changed leaf-fall TT the autumn before. This STAA was to regularise that position.

So the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) was aware by the time this was submitted, and possibly they requested that Chiltern submit this STAA as they had already been in discussions since Chiltern intro-ed their 'incorrrect' leaf-fall TT?
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]
  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