Splitting GWR franchise - not very sensible?

[HowardGWR]

I've just read through the consultation document and I was not very impressed with the idea floated to create two GW franchises, splitting them, but with big overlaps, not counting the ones with XC and W and Bs, already present. The proposer's own arguments for and against seemed to defeat the idea.

It was as though the civil servant was bored with the job of producing a consultation document and came up with the idea, to pass a wet afternoon in November. A waste of everyone's time, in my view (and our money).

 

[irish_rail]

The best thing everyone can do is respond to the consultation and tell them what you think. Can't see it being a popular idea , the more that respond and say as much, the less likely it will come to fruition.
KEEP GWR INTACT!

 

[HowardGWR]

Here is the link by the way.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t-western-rail-franchise-consultation-web.pdf

 

[Pete_uk]

Would be funny if Wessex Trains came back

 

[Mag_seven]

Would be funny if Wessex Trains came back

Or Thames Trains

 

[sjoh]

I've just read through the consultation document and I was not very impressed with the idea floated to create two GW franchises, splitting them, but with big overlaps, not counting the ones with XC and W and Bs, already present. The proposer's own arguments for and against seemed to defeat the idea.

It was as though the civil servant was bored with the job of producing a consultation document and came up with the idea, to pass a wet afternoon in November. A waste of everyone's time, in my view (and our money).

Yes, because we absolutely love wasting our time for absolutely no reason. Jesus.

I hope you realise that civil servants don't just go in to work every day and do whatever the hell they feel like. Some critical analysis on your part here would be appreciated.

 

[edwin_m]

I do think there is a tendency to assume "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" and just look at what might work better with a new setup, while losing sight of what might work worse as well as the inevitable cost (financial and otherwise) of changing things.

It's not like McDonalds where each outlet is in a single place and you can organise them rigidly by county or whatever. The very nature of a franchise linking places with other places is that there will be some untidy gaps and overlaps however it is arranged (unless you unify the whole network - but even then it would need some sort of organisational sub-division).

 

[DenmarkRail]

My main issue here is the Penzance to Paddington services... Currently there are SOME services that go via Bristol. This map suggests that won't happen.

Also, I can see frequency of the PAD-PENZ day trains decreasing massively through this.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Responded to consulation and opposed the idea of splitting. I feel the current GWR franchsie map is very good.

I did support transfer of Greenford to Chiltern if other branches get electrified though. To remove all diesel islands from the Thames Valley amongst other things.

 

[47802]

My main issue here is the Penzance to Paddington services... Currently there are SOME services that go via Bristol. This map suggests that won't happen.

Also, I can see frequency of the PAD-PENZ day trains decreasing massively through this.

Why is that an issue isn't the future IET timetable supposed drop London services via Bristol anyway.

 

[sprinterguy]

Would be funny if Wessex Trains came back

I doubt it would be for the average passenger. Even the consultation document appears to list considerably more cons than pros for the idea of a franchise split. Of course, this proposal would be different in form from the old Wessex Trains franchise in including the London inter-city services.

I wish that Government would stop moving the goalposts and just decide on which franchise model they prefer. I thought it had already been largely proven that smaller franchises prove less resilient and discourage integration. Although the short term nature of the first tranche of franchises may also have been a significant factor in this - Well established, largely self contained and locally focused franchises such as Chiltern and c2c/Essex Thameside seem to have done well for themselves.

 

[Wirewiper]

My main issue here is the Penzance to Paddington services... Currently there are SOME services that go via Bristol. This map suggests that won't happen.

That was always the plan, and was the intention longe before the proposal to split up the GW franchise. London Paddington - Devon & Cornwall services will be self-contained with their own dedicated class 802 fleet, which are to a different spec from the class 800s (bigger fuel tanks, more luggage space and extra toilet water/waste tanks to cater for the typically longer journeys).

Cross Country trains will continue to serve the Bristol - Devon & Cornwall corridor.

 

[sjoh]

Will Bristol extensions be cut altogether then, or are Weston/Taunton still going to be served by them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just read through the consultation document and I was not very impressed with the idea floated to create two GW franchises, splitting them, but with big overlaps, not counting the ones with XC and W and Bs, already present. The proposer's own arguments for and against seemed to defeat the idea.

It was as though the civil servant was bored with the job of producing a consultation document and came up with the idea, to pass a wet afternoon in November. A waste of everyone's time, in my view (and our money).

At least they aren't proposing splitting the branches off. There is a small amount of logic in separating the more regional express/commuter style bits of GWR which will be mostly electric and high frequency (and in many ways are a bit like a super-LM) from the mostly-diesel, true long distance InterCity bit going to the Westcountry plus its feeder branches.

Though I think it's best left as is.

 

[DenmarkRail]

IF this does happen, I'd like to hope that the DfT requires both be branded GWR...

 

[Wirewiper]

Will Bristol extensions be cut altogether then, or are Weston/Taunton still going to be served by them?

There are still extensions from Bristol TM to Weston-super-Mare and Taunton. Indeed IIRC the proposed new full-IEP timetable (December 2019?) has an hourly London Paddington - Bristol Parkway (non-stop) - Bristol Temple Meads - Weston-super-Mare service.

 

[gordonthemoron]

are they going to bring back the atmospheric railway?

 

[irish_rail]

The problem for me is you will be left with a franchise that contains one of the most intercity routes in the UK (Padd to Penzance) , grouped in with the quitest rural branch lines. Therefore it will not be a specialist and will no doubt do anything very well. One of tea DfTs main reasons for splitting off was to create specialist franchises and this just wouldn't be the case with this proposal.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can't the Dft just leave it alone - it needs to settle down with the revised infrastructure and the new and cascaded trains first. I'm sure the last thing the staff want is yet more reorganisation and uncertainty.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

That was always the plan, and was the intention longe before the proposal to split up the GW franchise. London Paddington - Devon & Cornwall services will be self-contained with their own dedicated class 802 fleet, which are to a different spec from the class 800s (bigger fuel tanks, more luggage space and extra toilet water/waste tanks to cater for the typically longer journeys).

The 802s will be used on the North Cotswolds too (see Mark Hopwood, Modern Railways, August 2016). I think it's vanishingly unlikely that GWR will keep two different fleets of 802s entirely separate.

 

[SwindonBert]

To me the document read as we're going to discuss the idea of splitting the franchise, whilst giving lots of good reasons why it should not be split

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me the document read as we're going to discuss the idea of splitting the franchise, whilst giving lots of good reasons why it should not be split

That's because it's really a bit of a silly idea.

 

[pemma]

The proposal isn't for a return of Wessex Trains, the western franchise would include Penzance to Paddington and the eastern franchise wouldn't include any services west of Bristol. That would mean the IEP fleet would be split between the two franchises.

 

[CapitalStar378]

On the suggested services map there's nothing beyond Swansea, assume this is an error with Grayling going on about the Narberth tunnel of late.

 

[sprinterguy]

That would mean the IEP fleet would be split between the two franchises.

The IEP fleet as contractually described, consisting of the class 800 and formerly class 801 units, would remains solely with the Great Western franchise. The class 802 fleet which was ordered commercially, assuming that GWR would retain, in the face of a franchise division, the additional 7 x 9-car sets for Cotswold services, would be split.

To me the document read as we're going to discuss the idea of splitting the franchise, whilst giving lots of good reasons why it should not be split

Yes, that's very much the impression I get, too!

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes, because we absolutely love wasting our time for absolutely no reason. Jesus.

I hope you realise that civil servants don't just go in to work every day and do whatever the hell they feel like. Some critical analysis on your part here would be appreciated.

You didn't read the words 'as though' I suppose. Of course I am not accusing you ( I presume you are one) of not doing your work. If it was politician's idea and had to be worked up, fair enough, but I do have experience of some public officials pursuing their own hobbies - at our expense and discomfort. I am sure you are not in that category. I hope not.

The clue to whose notion this was, identified by others here as well as me, perhaps lies in the arguments for splitting, which are countered very effectively in the document in the advantages and disadvantages section. It looks like the civil servants may be trying, this time, to counter the politicians' crazy ideas.

 

[tbtc]

To me the document read as we're going to discuss the idea of splitting the franchise, whilst giving lots of good reasons why it should not be split

That's the way that I read it.

Some people on here need to understand the way that Government (or any large organisation) works.

You come up with feasibility studies/ reports/ consultation documents/ proposals that suggest things to see if they could be done better. Often, you know that you don't want these things to happen, but you have to show that you've at least considered them.

So, you might intend to keep one GWR, but you have to placate angry people in Devon/ Cornwall who feel ignored by a huge franchise that seems to be too focussed on the Thames Valley/ Bristol axis. You have a politician who wants to be seen to respond to the "valid concerns" of their local voters. Some of that may be for A Local Franchise For Local People, some of it may be wanting to give local councillors some involvement (which they feel they don't have in a huge-franchise dominated by Paddington services), some of it may be people demanding all GWR announcements are bi-lingual (English and Cornish).

In the grand scheme of a ten year franchise, it doesn't cost a lot of money to have someone knock up a report that gives lip service to the demands for "local accountability" or "better involvement for West Country stakeholders". You examine the ideas, you dismiss the ideas, the politician can go away to explain that everything was investigated and considered, but the status quo is best. That's the way that Civil Servants operate, and their private sector equivalents.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

I would suggest that the real reason for splitting off Devon & Cornwall and Berks & Hants services is to make the main GW franchise more attractive to prospective and potentially new bidders, rather like the split of Transpennine and Northern. Judging by the House of Commons yesterday, and by their twitter feeds, Westcountry Tory MPs are seriously alarmed at the prospect, fearing a reduction in through services from Paddington and reduced support for local services.

 

[takno]

Another factor is that the costs of bidding and the guarantees required if you win a franchise are huge, restricting the number of companies who can bid. The complexities for European bidders post Brexit will also likely be higher. Given that, there is a significant risk of getting no bidders or a single bidder for the larger franchises. The only solution to that is to change the bidding process or change the franchise. Most people probably think the thing that should change is the bidding process, but the people in charge of the bidding process are very likely to disagree. The consultation document appears to be a presentation of active cases being made within the department, and possibly even borne from a desire to actually find out what stakeholders think.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect any responses will be swept under the carpet and that the people who will make the final decision already have their minds made up, but it's still important to assume that they haven't and to make your case, if only so they can't say that nobody warned them.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If Reading-Gatwick services were split off from GWR, would it be better off being with SWR, Southern or as a stand-alone franchise?