One thing my blog really isn’t, is a collection of anecdotal tales of my travels around the First Great Western network. This is quite deliberate: when I started writing I wanted to focus on some of the higher level strategic issues facing the railways and in particular the Greater Western franchise, rather than deal with the minutiae of my personal travel experiences.
Tonight however, I will make an exception to my rule.
This evening lightning struck some track side equipment in the Southall area. Chaos ensued as some of the lines between Reading and Paddington were closed and trains were cancelled, delayed and everything was generally disrupted. I, along with countless other travellers, faced the grim prospect of trying to wend my weary way home.
Fortunately, I managed to make it to Reading fairly easily by catching the first HST I could find that was leaving Paddington. I then proceeded to wait on a rather crowded, and particularly dull, Platform 4 at Reading Station. At around 20.08 a newly refurbished HST heading for Bristol Temple Meads pulled into the station. I looked through the windows to be greeted by the sight of Alison Forster, the Managing Director of First Great Western, wheeling a catering trolley through the train, chatting to passengers.
At a time of crisis, Ms Forster hadn’t shied away from the front line: she was there with her sleeves rolled up helping people and trying to make whatever difference she could. She deserves credit for efforts. Ms Forster probably wouldn’t think she was doing anything exceptional, she’d just see it as part of her job and of her responsibility. And maybe it is – but what a stark comparison to the simpering bureaucrats at the Department for Transport who, despite making passengers' lives a misery, hide in the shadows of their Ministry in Whitehall and would never dream of putting themselves in the line of fire and dealing with everyday travellers.
It is, of course, very easy to criticise First Great Western for problems and for people to be, maybe unjustifiably, scathing about its management, but one accusation that simply isn’t true is that Ms Forster and her team don’t care. I think they do. As I saw in Ms Forster’s actions this evening, I think they care very much indeed.
Monday, 2 July 2007
Sunday, 1 July 2007
Notwork Snail
A few months ago, rumours abounded that Network Rail wanted to play a greater role in the running of the rail network. Suggestions were made, and subsequently denied, that the company would like to take control of non-London stations, possibly act as a rolling stock company and even take over the jobs of train operating companies.
In the words of Margaret Thatcher: no, no, no!
If Network Rail were allowed to extend its powers in this way the result would be re-nationalisation by the back door. It would mean the nation’s rail services were put into the hands of what is essentially a government organisation that is neither particularly efficient nor particularly responsive to customer needs. Network Rail’s own record testifies to both these facts.
Private train operating companies have, over time, reduced the amount of subsidy they need to run their operations; indeed, many now pay money back to the government. First Great Western is a good case in point: back in 1996/7, Greater Western as a whole received a subsidy of over £190m to run trains, over the next ten years First Group will pay the government over £1bn. Such a transformation has only been possible by making the operation significantly more efficient and by growing revenues. Contrast this to Network Rail which receives an annual subsidy of more than £5bn, over three times what its predecessor – the equally ineffective Railtrack – received, and has its £18bn of debts guaranteed by the taxpayer.
The results of this lucrative position have not been particularly stunning. Last year the overall amount of delays attributed to train operation companies fell sharply; those attributed to Network Rail increased. Indeed, the train operators are now so frustrated with what they see as Network Rail’s poor performance that the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has tabled a resolution at Network Rail’s AGM later this month to the effect that operators “are concerned that in the fundamental matter of punctuality the delays for which the company is responsible are substantially higher than in 1999/2000”.
While Network Rail is clearly unable to discharge its present responsibilities either efficiently or effectively the idea that it should be given control of extra areas of the rail network is little more than ludicrous.
There is a great deal of truth in the argument that the separation of track and train, brought about under the Conservative’s ‘privatisation’ programme, was a fundamental policy error. It is obvious that without track and other fixed infrastructure trains cannot run, and without trains there is no need for any infrastructure. The point is that the two are an integrated whole; they go hand in glove. As such, a successful railway operation relies on the two being closely integrated and aligned. Separation hampers this.
The way to remedy this is not by giving more power to Network Rail – one of the more inefficient parts of the complex rail system. The proper way to solve the problem of a lack of vertical integration is to give train operating companies (TOCs) far more control over their essential infrastructure. A TOC could own the infrastructure outright; it could lease it as part of the franchise agreement; or, it could neither own nor lease it but exert a much tighter degree of control over the operation. All of this said, the integration of track and train has to be a longer term objective. It should not be the first, or the overriding objective of future rail policy. Indeed, its successful implementation relies on other changes being made to the structure of the rail system: for example, it would be imprudent to give TOCs control over infrastructure without first lengthening the terms of their franchises.
The bottom line, however, is clear. You do not make the railway network better by giving control to that part of it which is the least customer responsive, the least financially efficient and the most subject to political interference. That’s not a plan for a better future, it’s a recipe for disaster.
In the words of Margaret Thatcher: no, no, no!
If Network Rail were allowed to extend its powers in this way the result would be re-nationalisation by the back door. It would mean the nation’s rail services were put into the hands of what is essentially a government organisation that is neither particularly efficient nor particularly responsive to customer needs. Network Rail’s own record testifies to both these facts.
Private train operating companies have, over time, reduced the amount of subsidy they need to run their operations; indeed, many now pay money back to the government. First Great Western is a good case in point: back in 1996/7, Greater Western as a whole received a subsidy of over £190m to run trains, over the next ten years First Group will pay the government over £1bn. Such a transformation has only been possible by making the operation significantly more efficient and by growing revenues. Contrast this to Network Rail which receives an annual subsidy of more than £5bn, over three times what its predecessor – the equally ineffective Railtrack – received, and has its £18bn of debts guaranteed by the taxpayer.
The results of this lucrative position have not been particularly stunning. Last year the overall amount of delays attributed to train operation companies fell sharply; those attributed to Network Rail increased. Indeed, the train operators are now so frustrated with what they see as Network Rail’s poor performance that the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has tabled a resolution at Network Rail’s AGM later this month to the effect that operators “are concerned that in the fundamental matter of punctuality the delays for which the company is responsible are substantially higher than in 1999/2000”.
While Network Rail is clearly unable to discharge its present responsibilities either efficiently or effectively the idea that it should be given control of extra areas of the rail network is little more than ludicrous.
There is a great deal of truth in the argument that the separation of track and train, brought about under the Conservative’s ‘privatisation’ programme, was a fundamental policy error. It is obvious that without track and other fixed infrastructure trains cannot run, and without trains there is no need for any infrastructure. The point is that the two are an integrated whole; they go hand in glove. As such, a successful railway operation relies on the two being closely integrated and aligned. Separation hampers this.
The way to remedy this is not by giving more power to Network Rail – one of the more inefficient parts of the complex rail system. The proper way to solve the problem of a lack of vertical integration is to give train operating companies (TOCs) far more control over their essential infrastructure. A TOC could own the infrastructure outright; it could lease it as part of the franchise agreement; or, it could neither own nor lease it but exert a much tighter degree of control over the operation. All of this said, the integration of track and train has to be a longer term objective. It should not be the first, or the overriding objective of future rail policy. Indeed, its successful implementation relies on other changes being made to the structure of the rail system: for example, it would be imprudent to give TOCs control over infrastructure without first lengthening the terms of their franchises.
The bottom line, however, is clear. You do not make the railway network better by giving control to that part of it which is the least customer responsive, the least financially efficient and the most subject to political interference. That’s not a plan for a better future, it’s a recipe for disaster.
Saturday, 30 June 2007
Lack of conviction
Holding a position because you genuinely believe something to be true is admirable. Advocating something simply because it will secure you a modicum of publicity is both cheap and cynical. It is into this latter category that London TravelWatch’s recent call for First Great Western to lose its franchise falls.
In actuality, London TravelWatch stopped short of recommending that First Great Western be stripped of its franchise. That would have been too definitive and too decisive a statement. Rather, in a carefully worded comment, it said: “we believe now is possibly the time for the government to consider firm action on the future of the franchise.” Such ambiguity is cowardly. It is also very deliberate: it allows the media and public to interpret the statement as being tough with First Great Western but is sufficiently vague as to absolve London TravelWatch from the responsibility of actually having said anything definite at all.
In addition to saying very little, it is clear that London TravelWatch has no opinion of its own regarding Greater Western. It makes no recommendation as to what it believes the future of the franchise should be, but merely passes the buck to the government who it claims should ‘possibly’ (that’s a maybe!) look into the matter. Herein is a further problem. While London TravelWatch is keen to point to First Great Western’s failures, it does very little to address any government failings - many of which are central to the problems with today's railways.
Despite what London TravelWatch say, or don’t quite say, the franchise will not be removed from First Great Western. For a start, the terms of the agreement have not been broken. For another, the situation on the ground is improving. Even the irascible MP for Maidenhead, Theresa May, recognised this when she told the Maidenhead Advertiser that she was “keen to give them [FGW] another chance first before bringing the axe down.” The bottom line is that from a purely practical point of view, removing the franchise now would bring nothing but disruption and uncertainly and would do virtually nothing for passengers – the very passengers that LTW claims to represent.
London TravelWatch has generated some good publicity from its vapid press release. Unfortunately, it has come at the very expense of an attribute desperately needed by organisations of its kind: credibility. A Pyrrhic victory indeed.
In actuality, London TravelWatch stopped short of recommending that First Great Western be stripped of its franchise. That would have been too definitive and too decisive a statement. Rather, in a carefully worded comment, it said: “we believe now is possibly the time for the government to consider firm action on the future of the franchise.” Such ambiguity is cowardly. It is also very deliberate: it allows the media and public to interpret the statement as being tough with First Great Western but is sufficiently vague as to absolve London TravelWatch from the responsibility of actually having said anything definite at all.
In addition to saying very little, it is clear that London TravelWatch has no opinion of its own regarding Greater Western. It makes no recommendation as to what it believes the future of the franchise should be, but merely passes the buck to the government who it claims should ‘possibly’ (that’s a maybe!) look into the matter. Herein is a further problem. While London TravelWatch is keen to point to First Great Western’s failures, it does very little to address any government failings - many of which are central to the problems with today's railways.
Despite what London TravelWatch say, or don’t quite say, the franchise will not be removed from First Great Western. For a start, the terms of the agreement have not been broken. For another, the situation on the ground is improving. Even the irascible MP for Maidenhead, Theresa May, recognised this when she told the Maidenhead Advertiser that she was “keen to give them [FGW] another chance first before bringing the axe down.” The bottom line is that from a purely practical point of view, removing the franchise now would bring nothing but disruption and uncertainly and would do virtually nothing for passengers – the very passengers that LTW claims to represent.
London TravelWatch has generated some good publicity from its vapid press release. Unfortunately, it has come at the very expense of an attribute desperately needed by organisations of its kind: credibility. A Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Thursday, 28 June 2007
All change
“That's it. The end.” Tony Blair’s final words to the House of Commons yesterday may well have been true for his premiership, but for the government, and indeed the rest of the country, life continues to go on as normal. No one will be more acutely aware of this than Gordon Brown, who has, this morning, announced his new Cabinet.
Among the many changes, the transport brief has passed from the less than competent hands of Douglas Alexander to the, well, less than competent hands of Ruth Kelly. While it is unfair to judge Ms Kelly in advance of her tenure at transport, from her past performance as Secretary of State for Communities it is safe to say she is not renowned for her capability. The farcical introduction, then withdrawal then re-introduction of Home Information Packs (HIPs) is a testament to this fact. Ms Kelly presided over, but never quite accepted responsibility for, this dismal mess of a policy.
It is an error she must not repeat at the DfT, and especially not with the railways. The railways need three main things from politicians – vision, stability and honesty – and these must be Ms Kelly’s immediate priorities.
The vision part has nothing to do with spin. It is, in fact, a highly practical task of deciding how best our railways should be organised to deliver for the consumer and all of the other various industry stakeholders. Such a task is not easy, but it is desperately needed. A fundamental reappraisal of how the railways are structured and run is the one real change that would give, over the longer term, a much more responsive and successful railway network. As the holders of much of the power on the railways, such a reappraisal can only come from politicians and it is here than Ms Kelly must take the lead.
The stability part of the equation is less to do with long term strategic plans and more about leaving private train operating companies like First Great Western alone so that they can get on with delivering their franchise commitments. Under Douglas Alexander, the DfT not only set the terms of franchises agreements but also engaged itself in day-to-day activities such as setting timetables. The department has no business being involved in such tasks and is, in any case, notoriously bad at undertaking them. Ms Kelly must change this culture of micro-management at the DfT.
Honesty is an obvious one. The Department for Transport is a great stretcher of the truth: it makes decisions that cause problems on the railway network and then lets others, like First Great Western, take the blame while pretending it has nothing to do with situation on the ground. Not only is that dishonest, but it is unacceptable. Ms Kelly must ensure that the Department is transparent in its aims and objectives and that it takes full responsibility for its own actions. This is clearly something that Ms Kelly found difficult as Communities Secretary, but at Transport she has an ideal opportunity to make up for her past mistakes.
Standing outside Number Ten yesterday, Gordon Brown said, “…change cannot be met by the old politics.” Nowhere is this truer than at the Department for Transport: a better railway requires a new approach. Whether Ruth Kelly is the best person to deliver it is a question only time can answer.
Among the many changes, the transport brief has passed from the less than competent hands of Douglas Alexander to the, well, less than competent hands of Ruth Kelly. While it is unfair to judge Ms Kelly in advance of her tenure at transport, from her past performance as Secretary of State for Communities it is safe to say she is not renowned for her capability. The farcical introduction, then withdrawal then re-introduction of Home Information Packs (HIPs) is a testament to this fact. Ms Kelly presided over, but never quite accepted responsibility for, this dismal mess of a policy.
It is an error she must not repeat at the DfT, and especially not with the railways. The railways need three main things from politicians – vision, stability and honesty – and these must be Ms Kelly’s immediate priorities.
The vision part has nothing to do with spin. It is, in fact, a highly practical task of deciding how best our railways should be organised to deliver for the consumer and all of the other various industry stakeholders. Such a task is not easy, but it is desperately needed. A fundamental reappraisal of how the railways are structured and run is the one real change that would give, over the longer term, a much more responsive and successful railway network. As the holders of much of the power on the railways, such a reappraisal can only come from politicians and it is here than Ms Kelly must take the lead.
The stability part of the equation is less to do with long term strategic plans and more about leaving private train operating companies like First Great Western alone so that they can get on with delivering their franchise commitments. Under Douglas Alexander, the DfT not only set the terms of franchises agreements but also engaged itself in day-to-day activities such as setting timetables. The department has no business being involved in such tasks and is, in any case, notoriously bad at undertaking them. Ms Kelly must change this culture of micro-management at the DfT.
Honesty is an obvious one. The Department for Transport is a great stretcher of the truth: it makes decisions that cause problems on the railway network and then lets others, like First Great Western, take the blame while pretending it has nothing to do with situation on the ground. Not only is that dishonest, but it is unacceptable. Ms Kelly must ensure that the Department is transparent in its aims and objectives and that it takes full responsibility for its own actions. This is clearly something that Ms Kelly found difficult as Communities Secretary, but at Transport she has an ideal opportunity to make up for her past mistakes.
Standing outside Number Ten yesterday, Gordon Brown said, “…change cannot be met by the old politics.” Nowhere is this truer than at the Department for Transport: a better railway requires a new approach. Whether Ruth Kelly is the best person to deliver it is a question only time can answer.
Friday, 18 May 2007
Foolish consistency
If Bob Crow, General Secretary of the RMT union, were to be granted one ‘political’ wish he would probably opt to see the railways renationalised. Ever since the rail system was ‘privatised’ Mr Crow has been of the opinion that private companies have no right to be involved in the running of the rail network. It is easy to admire someone who sticks to their beliefs but, as Ralph Waldo Emerson once so sagely noted, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. And Mr Crow’s consistency on this issue is extremely foolish indeed.
Some of the points Mr Crow makes in relation to the state of the rail network are actually valid. For example, he identifies that the franchising system is a mess. Indeed it is: as has been discussed elsewhere on this blog, the franchising system is at the root of many problems. However, Mr Crow’s assertion that re-nationalisation is required because of these problems is logically flawed. First and foremost, the government is in charge of the franchising system and it is fully responsible for the state of that process. To suggest that control of the railways should be handed back to the very people who are incapable of designing and running a sensible franchising process is a highly specious argument. What is actually required is a better franchising system based around principles that will enable the railways to deliver for passengers in the way that most other private companies deliver on the needs of their consumers.
Mr Crow also bemoans the fact that private train operators like First Great Western make a profit. This is an old argument which is based on nothing more than sloppy thinking and narrow-minded bias. Of course, what Mr Crow and his ilk rarely mention is the fact that the government takes far more money from franchises like Greater Western than the private companies take in profit. But even if this were not the case, Mr Crow is guilty of a double standard: it is perfectly alright for him to campaign for his own members to receive higher salaries; but it is wrong for train companies to work hard to make more profit. Where exactly does Mr Crow think salary increases come from? They can only come from companies making a profit – a company making a loss is hardly in a position to increase the salaries of its staff.
In a recent press release, Mr Crow casually commented: “when passengers are expected to endure overcrowding, service cuts and inflation-busting fares hikes and rail staff are left to pick up the pieces, First Group’s profits are simply obscene.” What he fails to mention is that overcrowding, service cuts and fare rises have very little to do with First Group’s (or First Great Western’s) profits. They are all functions of government interference in the network: the very same government that Mr Crow wants to control our trains.
The simple truth is that the call for re-nationalisation is not a call for a better railway. It is an ideological position that both ignores the real cause of the problems on today’s railways and all of the very real benefits that private involvement, in whatever its form, has brought over the past ten years.
Some of the points Mr Crow makes in relation to the state of the rail network are actually valid. For example, he identifies that the franchising system is a mess. Indeed it is: as has been discussed elsewhere on this blog, the franchising system is at the root of many problems. However, Mr Crow’s assertion that re-nationalisation is required because of these problems is logically flawed. First and foremost, the government is in charge of the franchising system and it is fully responsible for the state of that process. To suggest that control of the railways should be handed back to the very people who are incapable of designing and running a sensible franchising process is a highly specious argument. What is actually required is a better franchising system based around principles that will enable the railways to deliver for passengers in the way that most other private companies deliver on the needs of their consumers.
Mr Crow also bemoans the fact that private train operators like First Great Western make a profit. This is an old argument which is based on nothing more than sloppy thinking and narrow-minded bias. Of course, what Mr Crow and his ilk rarely mention is the fact that the government takes far more money from franchises like Greater Western than the private companies take in profit. But even if this were not the case, Mr Crow is guilty of a double standard: it is perfectly alright for him to campaign for his own members to receive higher salaries; but it is wrong for train companies to work hard to make more profit. Where exactly does Mr Crow think salary increases come from? They can only come from companies making a profit – a company making a loss is hardly in a position to increase the salaries of its staff.
In a recent press release, Mr Crow casually commented: “when passengers are expected to endure overcrowding, service cuts and inflation-busting fares hikes and rail staff are left to pick up the pieces, First Group’s profits are simply obscene.” What he fails to mention is that overcrowding, service cuts and fare rises have very little to do with First Group’s (or First Great Western’s) profits. They are all functions of government interference in the network: the very same government that Mr Crow wants to control our trains.
The simple truth is that the call for re-nationalisation is not a call for a better railway. It is an ideological position that both ignores the real cause of the problems on today’s railways and all of the very real benefits that private involvement, in whatever its form, has brought over the past ten years.
Friday, 11 May 2007
Unfair dismissal
In my opinion, David Drew the Member of Parliament for Stroud does a dreadful job. Quite frankly, I don’t think he is fully capable of discharging the duties of an MP and, in all honesty, he should be removed from his post forthwith.
These are not really my views. Neither are they necessarily true. For all I know, Mr Drew probably does a very good job of representing his constituents. Statements of the type above are extremely easy to make and they are excellent ways, for those in positions of responsibility, to capture a piece of the limelight. Yet they are both ill considered and thoughtless.
For one thing, unless he does something completely illegal, Mr Drew has, through his election, a contract with his constituents. The majority voting for him agreed to elect him for a full term of office. You don’t have to agree with his election, of course, but the way the electoral system is structured is such that Mr Drew has an absolute right to serve for a full term, as does any Member of Parliament.
I am sure that Mr Drew would agree entirely with the above logic, which is why it is a pity he is unable to apply it to the commercial world. For those not aware, Mr Drew is the latest MP to call for First Great Western to lose its franchise. Such a manoeuvre – which could be known as 'doing a May' (after the ever disagreeable Theresa May, the first to employ the strategy) – is highly cynical.
Unless it breaches the terms of its contract, which it hasn’t, First Great Western can’t simply be ‘sacked’ from the Greater Western franchise; just as Mr Drew can’t be removed from office. Mr Drew should be well aware of this fact, and if he isn’t then he clearly isn’t qualified to make comments on this matter and should keep his views to himself. The likelihood is, of course, that Mr Drew is aware and that, despite this, he is trying to score some cheap political points to curry favour with the electorate of Stroud. This is nothing more than the politics of irresponsibility and it's one of the reasons MPs are held in such low esteem.
This is not to say that Mr Drew can’t, or shouldn’t, criticise First Great Western. With just cause, he has every right to. But he should be open and honest with the electorate and not call for things he knows are impossible.
If Mr Drew sincerely wanted a better service his time would be better spent applying pressure to the Department for Transport to ensure that First Great Western is able to keep the class 180 Adelante trains and that the Department stops its meddling in the rail system which is making life a misery for passengers.
These things may not be dramatic and exciting headline grabbers, but they represent a far more realistic and honest approach to the debate over the future of the Greater Western rail franchise.
These are not really my views. Neither are they necessarily true. For all I know, Mr Drew probably does a very good job of representing his constituents. Statements of the type above are extremely easy to make and they are excellent ways, for those in positions of responsibility, to capture a piece of the limelight. Yet they are both ill considered and thoughtless.
For one thing, unless he does something completely illegal, Mr Drew has, through his election, a contract with his constituents. The majority voting for him agreed to elect him for a full term of office. You don’t have to agree with his election, of course, but the way the electoral system is structured is such that Mr Drew has an absolute right to serve for a full term, as does any Member of Parliament.
I am sure that Mr Drew would agree entirely with the above logic, which is why it is a pity he is unable to apply it to the commercial world. For those not aware, Mr Drew is the latest MP to call for First Great Western to lose its franchise. Such a manoeuvre – which could be known as 'doing a May' (after the ever disagreeable Theresa May, the first to employ the strategy) – is highly cynical.
Unless it breaches the terms of its contract, which it hasn’t, First Great Western can’t simply be ‘sacked’ from the Greater Western franchise; just as Mr Drew can’t be removed from office. Mr Drew should be well aware of this fact, and if he isn’t then he clearly isn’t qualified to make comments on this matter and should keep his views to himself. The likelihood is, of course, that Mr Drew is aware and that, despite this, he is trying to score some cheap political points to curry favour with the electorate of Stroud. This is nothing more than the politics of irresponsibility and it's one of the reasons MPs are held in such low esteem.
This is not to say that Mr Drew can’t, or shouldn’t, criticise First Great Western. With just cause, he has every right to. But he should be open and honest with the electorate and not call for things he knows are impossible.
If Mr Drew sincerely wanted a better service his time would be better spent applying pressure to the Department for Transport to ensure that First Great Western is able to keep the class 180 Adelante trains and that the Department stops its meddling in the rail system which is making life a misery for passengers.
These things may not be dramatic and exciting headline grabbers, but they represent a far more realistic and honest approach to the debate over the future of the Greater Western rail franchise.
Thursday, 3 May 2007
One variant of Dives and Lazarus
Over the next ten years the Department for Transport will receive over £1bn from First Great Western in franchise premium payments. That money can come from only once place: your pocket.
The payment is approximately the equivalent of a 15% tax on every ticket sale. If your season ticket costs £3,500 then £525 of it will go to the government; if your ticket for a weekend away costs £85 then £12.75 of it will go to the government. The question every customer of First Great Western should be asking is: what value am I getting from this charge?
So how will the money be used? No one but the Department for Transport knows; there is next to no transparency in how the government intends to use your money.
One thing it could be used for is to fund additional capacity. The Department has made much of its announcement of 1,000 additional carriages. But it has not detailed where these will be going or exactly when they will be introduced; and, it is quite possible that Greater Western will receive none of this new rolling stock. The point is that, at the moment, this is a promise with no credibility. It’s jam tomorrow.
Yet, the Department could, if it wanted, take action right now. It could set aside some of that £1bn and use it to allow First Great Western to keep its fleet of Adelante (class 180) trains. These are due to be withdrawn from service on Greater Western in December 2007 when additional capacity has been introduced through a combination of the HST fleet modernisation programme and additional HSTs entering service.
Keeping the 180s would help to reduce overcrowding even further than the planned capacity increases. It may also permit a cascading of rolling stock which would mean some of the older carriages in the former Wessex region could be replaced by newer trains – possibly class 165s from the Thames Valley routes. Having more stock to play with would also act as a buffer against disruption from train failures. All regions, from Maidenhead to Menheniot would feel the benefit.
This is a real and feasible solution to an increasingly frustrating problem and, most importantly, it is something that can be implemented by the end of this year – not at some unspecified point in the dim and distant future.
However, it is a solution that only the government can provide. But to ensure that the government gets the message it will take the commitment of passengers: each and every fare paying customer who funds the £1bn pouring into the government’s coffers needs to write and demand that their money is used to help provide a better service for the Great Western region and to keep the class 180s. They must make it clear that their suffering can no longer be ignored.
----------
You can contact the Department for Transport by emailing the following people:
douglas.alexander@dft.gsi.gov.uk (Secretary of State)
tomharrismp@parliament.uk (Undersecretary of State)
mike.mitchell@dft.gsi.gov.uk (Director General DfT Rail Group)
peter.west@dft.gsi.gov.uk (Franchise Manager)
Do be polite in your communication but do not be afraid to express your views; remember Civil Servants and Ministers are there to serve the public and are funded by the taxes you pay!
The payment is approximately the equivalent of a 15% tax on every ticket sale. If your season ticket costs £3,500 then £525 of it will go to the government; if your ticket for a weekend away costs £85 then £12.75 of it will go to the government. The question every customer of First Great Western should be asking is: what value am I getting from this charge?
So how will the money be used? No one but the Department for Transport knows; there is next to no transparency in how the government intends to use your money.
One thing it could be used for is to fund additional capacity. The Department has made much of its announcement of 1,000 additional carriages. But it has not detailed where these will be going or exactly when they will be introduced; and, it is quite possible that Greater Western will receive none of this new rolling stock. The point is that, at the moment, this is a promise with no credibility. It’s jam tomorrow.
Yet, the Department could, if it wanted, take action right now. It could set aside some of that £1bn and use it to allow First Great Western to keep its fleet of Adelante (class 180) trains. These are due to be withdrawn from service on Greater Western in December 2007 when additional capacity has been introduced through a combination of the HST fleet modernisation programme and additional HSTs entering service.
Keeping the 180s would help to reduce overcrowding even further than the planned capacity increases. It may also permit a cascading of rolling stock which would mean some of the older carriages in the former Wessex region could be replaced by newer trains – possibly class 165s from the Thames Valley routes. Having more stock to play with would also act as a buffer against disruption from train failures. All regions, from Maidenhead to Menheniot would feel the benefit.
This is a real and feasible solution to an increasingly frustrating problem and, most importantly, it is something that can be implemented by the end of this year – not at some unspecified point in the dim and distant future.
However, it is a solution that only the government can provide. But to ensure that the government gets the message it will take the commitment of passengers: each and every fare paying customer who funds the £1bn pouring into the government’s coffers needs to write and demand that their money is used to help provide a better service for the Great Western region and to keep the class 180s. They must make it clear that their suffering can no longer be ignored.
----------
You can contact the Department for Transport by emailing the following people:
douglas.alexander@dft.gsi.gov.uk (Secretary of State)
tomharrismp@parliament.uk (Undersecretary of State)
mike.mitchell@dft.gsi.gov.uk (Director General DfT Rail Group)
peter.west@dft.gsi.gov.uk (Franchise Manager)
Do be polite in your communication but do not be afraid to express your views; remember Civil Servants and Ministers are there to serve the public and are funded by the taxes you pay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
