Potential Bidders for the next Greater Western franchise

[bnm]

No, all First ever did was turn down the three year extension option.

Thus neatly avoiding £900M in premium payments to the DfT. Cynical and something I hope the DfT take into consideration when they look at the bids.

 

[Zoe]

Thus neatly avoiding £900M in premium payments to the DfT. Cynical and something I hope the DfT take into consideration when they look at the bids.

Would they be allowed to though?

 

[Requeststop]

I'd quite be in favour of having one operator to look after the branch lines west of Exeter, feeding into the main line services run by FGW, on perhaps a "community railway" basis, with local management and dedicated stock, and with much lower overheads than being owned by a massive PLC, and able to make decisions on a local level. Although that doesn't mean that I don't think FGW have done a reasonable job with what the Government has allowed them to have.

I like the idea of an operator running Devon and Cornwall branches only. The community idea etc appeals to the "localism" ideals of the government. there would only be conflict of track at Exeter as far as Cowley Bridge Jcn. The run from Newton Abbot to Paignton should provide no problems. Plymouth-St Beudeaux Jcn is easy enough to accomodate the Gunnislake branch with no difficulty and Truro-Penwithers Jcn should give no cause for concern to the main line. This should leave the Penzance-Exeter line in the hands of the main Franchise for Great Western and Cross Country Services.

If it were to come about I might even put some money into the St. Ives Branch and develop St.Erth Station, make use of Platform 4 and even get more trains to stop at Lelant!

 

[IanXC]

I've never been really convinced of the philosophy that everything in one area needs to be lumped together in one franchise. They may say that services can be integrated and what have you, but the London services have really always been quite distinct from the branch lines, haven't they, on any railway. I'd quite be in favour of having one operator to look after the branch lines west of Exeter, feeding into the main line services run by FGW, on perhaps a "community railway" basis, with local management and dedicated stock, and with much lower overheads than being owned by a massive PLC, and able to make decisions on a local level. Although that doesn't mean that I don't think FGW have done a reasonable job with what the Government has allowed them to have.

I suspect the level of overheads is much more linked to the overall size of the operation than the size of the operator. An organisation in any industry will have a point where the economies of scale tail off and are replaced with diseconomies of scale, I suspect that some of the larger franchises will be hitting diseconomies however there is no reason why they can't be structured into business units, and just share the central functions where this reduces overall costs.

Thus neatly avoiding £900M in premium payments to the DfT. Cynical and something I hope the DfT take into consideration when they look at the bids.

I suspect that given the electrification coming DfT would probably rather negotiate a new franchise than negotiate costly amendments to the existing one. Such a new franchise may well decide to electrify some Thames Valley branches which the incumbent coming to the end of their franchise probably wouldn't.

 

[RPM]

Chiltern has been owned by DB since 2007! (Ditto their half of LO.)

Indeed, but things only began to change at Chiltern when DB bought Arriva. To all intents and purposes Chiltern were taken over by Arriva at that point.

 

[Jobsworth]

Did someone say a few pages back that the FGW fleet was in pretty good order? What day was that then? Around the Bristol area, dmu reliability is crap and HST's follow on a close second. Ask anyone who was stuck on 1C18 at Bath Friday afternoon, then when they eventually got to Bristol were turned away from local services to Weston because they were already rammed.

 

[Eagle]

To all intents and purposes Chiltern were taken over by Arriva at that point.

Chiltern Railways are a full subsidiary of Arriva Rail, who are themselves owned by DB AG.

(Although it was DB who bought Arriva, in terms of UK rail franchises Arriva Rail took over DB Regio UK, formerly known as Laing Rail.)

 

[route:oxford]

Would they be allowed to though?

It would be in appropriate if they looked at a valid interpretation of the contract unfavourably.

There is no way that any intelligent, skilled lawyer would have ever permitted that clause if it was not the intention of the DfT to embrace it.

 

[bnm]

Would they be allowed to though?

Probably not officially. I just hope it is in the minds of the decision makers when they are applying the 'value-for-money' test to the bids. £900M is a lot of money. The DfT won't get anywhere near that amount from the first three years of a new franchise.

 

[Zoe]

It would be in appropriate if they looked at a valid interpretation of the contract unfavourably.

There is no way that any intelligent, skilled lawyer would have ever permitted that clause if it was not the intention of the DfT to embrace it.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. It was First that used the clause in the franchise to not take the three year extension, it was not odered by the DfT. The question here is if the fact that First did not take this three year extension can be taken into account by the DfT when the new franchise is decided?

 

[Flamingo]

I've read all eight pages of this thread..... Instead of asking "who should run the greater western franchise" the question should really be:

There is a team of people from senior management down to front-line staff who work on the greater western franchise, all of whose jobs are protected under TUPE. Which company would you like them to pay approx 20% profit to? This company will also choose the exterior livery.

That's a fair point. From that point of view, I HATE the ATW new uniform, I'm not too aware of the others. Regarding my free travel, ATW/XC would be more useful to me than all the other First franchises, which I have never used.

 

[timstours]

as flamingo says ,the lights on fgw 125s are far too bright ,if both sets are on per coach you just as well give up looking out of the window .two tables per coach and thje toilet taken out of coach A.
in other words how to ruin a mark 3 coach
as for windows perhaps that could start another thread ,they way things are going we wont need them at all much longer because most people are on their mobile devices of varoius types ,and dont look out of windows

 

[LexyBoy]

Thus neatly avoiding £900M in premium payments to the DfT. Cynical and something I hope the DfT take into consideration when they look at the bids.

They should really take it into consideration when drawing up the terms of the franchise. First did what made financial sense within the context of their contract, and it'd be foolish to expect anything else. If you want a company to act a certain way, you have to give financial of legal (dis)incentives - TOCs, like banks and any other company, act in their own interests, not for the public good.

 

[34D]

20% profit?

Show us your evidence for that...

Eh? I don't need to show evidence! Its a typical figure that businesses in the transport industry aim for.

My point was the successful bidder is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[tbtc]

Eh? I don't need to show evidence! Its a typical figure that businesses in the transport industry aim for.

My point was the successful bidder is pretty much irrelevant.

I think that the profit margin on profitable franchises is around 3% (from discussions on here etc).

Some franchises obviously didn't make their owners any money (or "enough" money)

 

[warriorwarlord]

I'm not a fan of privatised railways but from the choices...
*First group - probably the best contender, they have improved a lot and making more of an effort.
*NX - GOD NO!!! The state of their MK3 coaching stock on the Anglia line is/was atrocious, what with the extortionate fares they used to milk out of peoples wallets for the displeasure of using that awful line, this would be a retrograde step! Also, two words that strike fear into any London commuters head. Silverlink Metro! Having said that, a certain manager at FGW was ex Silverlink.

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. It was First that used the clause in the franchise to not take the three year extension, it was not odered by the DfT. The question here is if the fact that First did not take this three year extension can be taken into account by the DfT when the new franchise is decided?

I believe the Franchise was for 7 years (2006-2013) with an extra 2 year extension available if the DfT was minded to grant one, First said we don't want the extension (They are losing money on FGW and with disruption due to engineering works would have been unlikely to have made the payments if they did extend). Unlike Nat-Ex they are sticking around until the end of their contract.

 

[Zoe]

I believe the Franchise was for 7 years (2006-2013) with an extra 2 year extension available if the DfT was minded to grant one, First said we don't want the extension (They are losing money on FGW and with disruption due to engineering works would have been unlikely to have made the payments if they did extend). Unlike Nat-Ex they are sticking around until the end of their contract.

The franchise was for ten years and the subsidy/premium profile would have been agreed for this period with the final three years subject to a continuation review. First had the option not to go the full term, this is not the same as National Express walking away from East Coast in 2009.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Plus i would love to see a pacer in a National Express livery with ickle connection bars!

 

[Eagle]

Plus i would love to see a pacer in a National Express livery with ickle connection bars!

Or in Stagecoach blue or red with a Great Western Trains logo...

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Or in Stagecoach blue or red with a Great Western Trains logo...

Nah...National Express sounds better with ickle connection bars for cute ickle trains.

 

[Zoe]

Or in Stagecoach blue or red with a Great Western Trains logo...

In 2005 they bid as Brunel Trains although that was just the company name, they could have used a different branding.

 

[Eagle]

In 2005 they bid as Brunel Trains although that was just the company name, they could have used a different branding.

EMT's bid name was Stagecoach Midland Rail...

 

[Flamingo]

as flamingo says ,the lights on fgw 125s are far too bright ,if both sets are on per coach you just as well give up looking out of the window .two tables per coach and thje toilet taken out of coach A.
in other words how to ruin a mark 3 coach

Sorry, it wasn't me, I think the lights are ok and I have never understood the fuss over them (and I probably spend longer under them than anybody else on the forum).

The reason the tables were taken out was to increase the number of seats available to commuters on the Reading-London stretch as they were the main ones complaining about the lack of capacity (see threads passim), and the only realistic option open was to increase the numbers that could be carried in each coach, (as the number of coaches and the number of sets that could travel on the track are finite). Although given the commuters to Reading seem to prefer to stand (and complain) even when there are plenty of seats on the train, I do wonder why First bothered.

It was the only alternative to increase the number of seats. Personally, I would have taken out all the tables as well, this would have made another 20 + seats per set.

 

[route:oxford]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. It was First that used the clause in the franchise to not take the three year extension, it was not odered by the DfT. The question here is if the fact that First did not take this three year extension can be taken into account by the DfT when the new franchise is decided?

There are two parties (or more) to every contract. Contracts are reviewed in meticulous detail by the very expensive lawyers of all parties prior to sign off.

If the DfT and their lawyers were not absolutely happy with the terms and potential implementation of the contract, they would have changed before it was signed off.

So whilst there may be a few tantrums and froth in the forums, it's not something that should be looked at unfavourably by the DfT

 

[Oliver]

I´m Spanish and I´m more than surprised to find Renfe in the list. Renfe conventional services (non High Speed) are below par. I don´t see current Renfe Management running the UK complex services.

The AVE network service is fantastic, but basically because is an isolated network.

Yes, and RENFE is owned by a state which has huge financial problems and may well fall out of the Euro in the next year or two. Anyone thinking that RENFE will be investing in fleets of new trains for GW is dreaming.

 

[Schnellzug]

Sorry, it wasn't me, I think the lights are ok and I have never understood the fuss over them (and I probably spend longer under them than anybody else on the forum).

The reason the tables were taken out was to increase the number of seats available to commuters on the Reading-London stretch as they were the main ones complaining about the lack of capacity (see threads passim), and the only realistic option open was to increase the numbers that could be carried in each coach, (as the number of coaches and the number of sets that could travel on the track are finite). Although given the commuters to Reading seem to prefer to stand (and complain) even when there are plenty of seats on the train, I do wonder why First bothered.

It was the only alternative to increase the number of seats. Personally, I would have taken out all the tables as well, this would have made another 20 + seats per set.

Or better still, made IC services in the peaks set down/pick up only at Reading, so the poor Communters would have to use the local services as they're supposed to. Trains from Penzance are not laid on for Commuters, stupid Commuters.

 

[TEW]

Or better still, made IC services in the peaks set down/pick up only at Reading, so the poor Communters would have to use the local services as they're supposed to. Trains from Penzance are not laid on for Commuters, stupid Commuters.

I don't quite know how you plan to fit all the commuters on the local trains from Reading seeing as they are at the most 6-carriages long and full from all the commuters from the smaller stations that board them. The only way you can deal with all the commuters is using fast HSTs. The Penzance services from London in the evening are already pick-up only at Reading, but that's only because they are full without Reading passengers. The increase in seats isn't just useful for Reading-London either, having the extra seats on the London-Penzance services when they are packed in the summer is much welcomed as well.

 

[bnm]

The Penzance services from London in the evening are already pick-up only at Reading, but that's only because they are full without Reading passengers.

You'll find a lot of Reading commuters on these 'pick up only' services. It's a token gesture by FGW and one that, in my opinion, is not enforced enough. Canny commuters know the Plymouth/Penzance services stop at Reading and pile on regardless of announcements or what the timetable says.

Regular RPI stings should be carried out. That'll learn 'em!

 

[Nym]

Oooo, yeah please. Sting em then free up space on long distance services for long distance pax.