Great western Franchise

[Pumbaa]

I did read somewhere a few months ago saying that one of the bidders for the GW franchise was looking at transfering maintenance of the dmu fleet from st phillips marsh to Cardiff canton.

It didnt say which bidder it was but I think we can pretty much guess who.

2 of the bidders are. One of them is pretty easy to eliminate. One should know better, as they did it before... :-x

 

[LE Greys]

Anyone but NX, frankly, after the disaster of NXEC. First seem to be doing OK, although I wish they would go back to something resembling the old colour scheme. I don't like the cramped conditions of the HST refurbs and would like to see better catering, but other than that I think First are mostly OK.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

I have been using FGW for about six years now. I bow to other people's greater knowledge of Stagecoach etc. The consensus seems to be to stick with First.

 

[Charlie2555]

I've used First Great Western since it first came about in 1998 and whilst it has improved dramatically my experience of Stagecoach's South West Trains has been better. I would prefer Stagecoach to get the franchise

 

[tbtc]

I can't see a problem with Stagecoach winning as they operate two different routes to London, it's the same if Virgin won the ECML - yes they would operate all Angle Scottish services

I really want to make an obtuse comment, but...

I know it's been much argued about before, but can we recap briefly for a moment why no one likes this IEP gadget?

There's a thread here - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=65731 - I don't have a problem with IEP, which makes me a rarity on here!

 

[shinkansen1966]

Will any new franchisee be required to keep the 'Great Western' name ?

Remember when First took over the Thameslink services a re-brand First Capital Connect ? Or when London Tilbury & Southend became C2C ?

 

[tbtc]

Will any new franchisee be required to keep the 'Great Western' name ?

Remember when First took over the Thameslink services a re-brand First Capital Connect ? Or when London Tilbury & Southend became C2C ?

Apart from ScotRail I can't think of any franchise where you'd be expected to retain the name - you could have SnappySnaps Rail as far as I'm aware.

 

[Masboroughlad]

Will any new franchisee be required to keep the 'Great Western' name ?

Remember when First took over the Thameslink services a re-brand First Capital Connect ? Or when London Tilbury & Southend became C2C ?

I would imagine they can call it what they want. That said, I think Great Western is one of those names that brings a grand iamge with it. Think the name should be that (or at least include it).

Great Western Trains?
Arriva Great Western?
DB Great Western?
NXGW? (They would probably use something whacky)

If it deviates away from the GW name, maybe something like Brunel Trains, Western Trains, Wales and West, West and Wales, West Country Railways....

 

[fgwrich]

The names are in the first post:

First (First Great Western)
- Arriva UK/ DB (Great Western Trains - no doubt in similiar vain to the way XC is operated...Hide the Arriva name so people won't think itll be carp)
- National Express (National Express Great Western - YUCK!)
- Stagecoach (Stagecoach Great Western Trains)

 

[tbtc]

- Arriva UK/ DB (Great Western Trains - no doubt in similiar vain to the way XC is operated...Hide the Arriva name so people won't think itll be carp)

Like their "Trains Wales" franchise?

A franchise that is carp might go down well in some of the Cornish fishing villages?

 

[Masboroughlad]

I just think that it is a real shame that the biddders are so limited now.

New blood would be good. Suppose it was inevitable (but deadly boring) that all of the fledgling bidders that started out at initial BR privatisation would get swallowed up. And we have some overseas interest now, but hardly exciting!

Given a free hand, who would you like to see running our railways today:

EasyJet?
RyanAir?
Jet2?
BA?
Lufthansa?
BAA?
Alliance Trains (or other OAOs)?
P&O?
Directly Operated Railways?
BR?
DRS?
Network Rail?
Colas Rail?
or Hospitality industry backed bids in conjunction with financiers?

Any other outlandish ideas for owners?

 

[Pumbaa]

The names are in the first post:

First (First Great Western)
- Arriva UK/ DB (Great Western Trains - no doubt in similiar vain to the way XC is operated...Hide the Arriva name so people won't think itll be carp)
- National Express (National Express Great Western - YUCK!)
- Stagecoach (Stagecoach Great Western Trains)

Not quite - those are the registered company names (ie add Ltd on the end of them all). In the same vein, London Midland's company name is London and Birmingham Railway Ltd. Not quite as catchy.

I think the only ones we could be dead sure about are Stagecoach (branded similar to EMT and SWT as GWT), NX (NX Great Western) and First (as current).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know it's been much argued about before, but can we recap briefly for a moment why no one likes this IEP gadget?

Essentially because;

- it's replacing full length HSTs with 5 car bi-modes (essentially a Voyager with a pantograph).
- the end product is so vastly different from the original spec, it is unfair to say both that a) it is a true HST replacement and b) Hitachi deservedly should have the contract
- the bi-mode concept is being used to quietly cancel future electrification plans
- there are so few all-electric trains being introduced
- together, this paves the way for a new future policy of "no electrification - chuck bi-mode at it instead".


I should make it clear that had the original spec been kept to, ie all electric, most critics wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Schnellzug]

Essentially because;

- it's replacing full length HSTs with 5 car bi-modes (essentially a Voyager with a pantograph).
- the end product is so vastly different from the original spec, it is unfair to say both that a) it is a true HST replacement and b) Hitachi deservedly should have the contract
- the bi-mode concept is being used to quietly cancel future electrification plans
- there are so few all-electric trains being introduced
- together, this paves the way for a new future policy of "no electrification - chuck bi-mode at it instead".


I should make it clear that had the original spec been kept to, ie all electric, most critics wouldn't have a problem.

So why is there this Government obssession with only having small trains? Or rather, if just to save money, what excuse are the Government using to justify it?

 

[tbtc]

- it's replacing full length HSTs with 5 car bi-modes (essentially a Voyager with a pantograph)

To be fair, a significant number of the IEP units are going to be fully electric and nine(?) coaches long - the five caoch ones are intended to run in multiple for providing portion working on "extremities".

Bi-mode seems a sensible way of ensuring that the large number of branches off the GWML retain a London service (without requiring/justifying electrification of every branch in the short term)

 

[fgwrich]

And then we've got the farces of which trains will run what services and where too - The business of the Aberdeen & Inverness services, as well as FGW's Pembroke Dock - which won't be able to take the IEP becuase of it's coach length.

Another area i don't like about IEP is that its replacing a go anywhere train - The HST / MK3 (23m), with 26 metre coaches, which will then limit its areas of operations.

 

[Schnellzug]

The portion working sounds an interesting idea. It might not be that bad an idea if it encourages some imagination in providing services, although I have heard that they won't be permitted west of Newton Abbot (so in practice, I suppose, Paignton) because they're not sure whether they be able to cope with the banks. Could they do something like two x 5 car units to Bristol, with one going on to W-s-M or something like that?

 

[Pumbaa]

To be fair, a significant number of the IEP units are going to be fully electric and nine(?) coaches long - the five caoch ones are intended to run in multiple for providing portion working on "extremities".

Bi-mode seems a sensible way of ensuring that the large number of branches off the GWML retain a London service (without requiring/justifying electrification of every branch in the short term)

You and I must be looking at different things then

Table 3.5:

Proposed IEP weekday diagrams allocations (the proposed fleet consists of 49 unit diagrams divided as shown)

Length Mode Quantity
5-car bi-mode 26
8-car electric 11
8-car bi-mode 12
Total 49

I don't consider 11 out of 49 to be 'significant number'. We're not yet sure on the extent of portion working as the previously released plans were from the time when the order was almost twice as large. However, the detailed services have remained the same since the figures were revised downwards, leading to an inference that either a) the proposed portion services have been largely scrapped, and those mentioned will now just 1 x 5 car bi-mode or b) HSTs will be kept on in larger than envisaged numbers.

If a) then it's a repeat of the Voyager fiasco and if b) what was the point in IEP in the first place?

And this is just for the GW at the moment.

 

[fgwrich]

If a) then it's a repeat of the Voyager fiasco and if b) what was the point in IEP in the first place?

I think one of the best ways of describing the IEP Fiasco at the moment is that It's a train looking for a home, rather than a home looking for a train.

 

[Martin222002]

If a) then it's a repeat of the Voyager fiasco and if b) what was the point in IEP in the first place?

And this is just for the GW at the moment.

Well if you look at the future service patter (see below) from the Great Western Franchise Replacement Consultation document most likely option a), with 5 car bi modes running under the wires between Bristol, Cardiff and London.

IEP InterCity services

The size and make-up of the new IEP fleet will be capable of delivering the following indicative modelled service pattern. Within the contractual commitments of the IEP programme the franchisee will have flexibility as to how the fleet is operated on a day-to-day basis:

• 4 trains per hour (tph) London–Bristol Temple Meads; 2 tph running via Bath and 2 tph running via Bristol Parkway. Some of the Parkway trains would extend to Weston-super-Mare and, in the peaks, to Taunton;
  
• 2 tph London–Cardiff, with 1 tph serving Swansea, and 1 train per day extending to Carmarthen;
  
• 1 tph London–Worcester, with some extensions to Great Malvern and Hereford;
  
• 1 tph London–Cheltenham;
  
• 1 tph (most hours) semi-fast to Westbury, with some extensions to Exeter and one mid-day round trip to Paignton.

 

[Schnellzug]

So in other words, cutting through all the polysyllabic flannel, basically the same service level as now, with shorter Trains, except for the two extra from Bristol via Pkwy. Bath and Cardiff would still have exactly the same service. Do the Government really think we're that stupid that we wouldn't notice that?

 

[swt_passenger]

The portion working sounds an interesting idea. It might not be that bad an idea if it encourages some imagination in providing services, although I have heard that they won't be permitted west of Newton Abbot (so in practice, I suppose, Paignton) because they're not sure whether they be able to cope with the banks.

There was a belief that the 10 car bi-mode would not be powerful enough - because it would only have had a power car at one end, but since then they decided that there wouldn't actually be any 10 car bi-modes built.

There was never any suggestion that the 5 car bi-modes would be underpowered as originally specced, but they've changed to underfloor engines now anyway.