well prehaps the DAFT should MAKE London Midland have the 180s and we can have some of the 150 units early

 
Trust me, they wouldn't dare. 

SWT can kick up a real fuss when they want to - more guts than FGW. 

 
i am sure they would like to keep there 159s but prehaps the Daft will dictate that they have 180s whilst we have 159s

 
10 coach 23m rolling stock can't operate between Basingstoke and Salisbury unless non-stopping and all trains stop at Andover - so that's out of the question.

Besides I'm sure SWT would rather keep their flagship 159 fleet.

 

There wouldn't be enough capactity beyond Salisbury?

 
I think that's going to be the issue for anyone with half decent stock which we might have our eye on. Still, presumably the ROSCO isn't going to hold out forever, and will need to cut a deal with someone to lease the units.

 
Good idea but i'm sure SWT are happy at the moment with the stock they've got and it is in absolutely brilliant condition so swapping it for unreliable expensive to lease 180's may not be the best option for them.

 
Unfortunately I think 5 coaches would be too much of a leap from the current 2 (or even the previous 3). However, if the DaFT insist on dabbling in rolling stock changes then I'm sure they could find a route currently operated by 3 car Cl 170 or CL159 (there's a clue!) services which could do with more capacity, thus releasing some decent stock for the Cardiff-Pompey.

Hourly 5 coach Adelante's on the Waterloo -Exeter anyone?

 
Its a shame that everyone seems to recognise how well used and overcrowded the Cardiff-Portsmouth route is but nothing gets done about it. Those 180s still have yet to find a home you know  (apart from 2 which Hull Trains have taken)

 
The bit on FGW should be forwarded to every MP on the Cardiff to Portsmouth route.

 
CW gives his view (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/578.shtml

 
Yorkshire Post article , January 8 2008 (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/yorkshire/jan8,08.shtml

 
RAIL article (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/581.shtml

 
Many relevant issues are explored in the link below.
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/tt/aug1,07.shtml

 
Neither do I , but I do wonder whether this may be the ultimate intention.

 
Hi Lee

It does not surprise me that bus services were included in the HRAT - after all, I am sure there are places where they may well be cheaper. My take on it is that this is a rail franchise, not a bus franchise and, as such, it should concentrate on the running of rail services not buses.

If the rolling stock situation - i.e. the unfair relationship between the leasing companies and the train operating companies - was sorted out, it may well be profitable to run services even on lines where passenger traffic was relatively scarce. The way the whole rail network is set up at the moment, it is not surprising that it is unprofitable to run services on many routes.

In short, I don't think running buses is the answer. Sorting out many of the problems with the nature of franchising is the answer.

CJ

 
Hi CJ and welcome to the forum.

I would like to pick up on one of your points on the HRAT (High Return Alternative Tender.)

I have read all the relevant documents on this , and noted that it invited bidders to submit plans for Greater Western Franchise bus services. Indeed , at a Melksham Rail Development Group meeting , Andrew Griffiths confirmed that such services had been included by First in their bid.

Whats your take on that?

 
Hi

I think this, and therefore Christian^s article, misses two critical points.

Firstly, First Group didn^t just submit one bid to the Department for Transport; none of the bidders did. Each had to submit a minimum of two tenders and, possibly three if they chose to do so:

1. Base Case Tender (BCT): this is compulsory and is the only tender on which bidders are assessed and, ultimately, chosen. The government (the Strategic Rail Authority in this instance as it was still in existence when the franchise first went out to tender) sets the specifications for the base case ^ the train operating companies have virtually no input whatsoever. From the outset, the base case which was based on Service Level Commitment 2 (SLC2) always had anomalies and cuts. In other words, it was the government that built the cuts into the franchising process and made companies bid against it.

2. High Return Alternative Tender (HRAT): again, this is compulsory but bidders are not assessed on this. The HRAT is a submission where bidders need to meet overall franchise objectives but must do so in a way that cuts costs and delivers maximum returns to the government. Companies are actively encouraged to make cuts, within reason, and can make changes to the SLC2 and the timetable.

3. Alternative Tender (AT): this is optional. Bidders have a free hand and can make a case for delivering a premium service and for adding capacity. Again, bidders are not assessed on this.

The ultimate franchise agreement awarded to First is, most likely, a hybrid of the three submissions. However, what is clear from this is that, apart from being incredibly stupid, the franchising specification always had cuts built into it: companies were forced to put cuts into their bids.

The second point stems from this. Yes, First did opt to bid and did so knowing that there were cuts in the franchise. However, what were they supposed to do? Walk always and let some other company get the franchise? Commercially that would have been suicide. In any case, no matter who won the franchise we would still be in the position we are now simply because the government specified, from day one, the type of service it wanted.

It is ludicrous to blame First when the government:

1. Set the parameters of the franchising process
2. Set the base level specification including levels of service
3. Required bidders to maximize revenue for the DfT
4. Ultimately chose the bidder and set the franchise specification

First, like any train operating company is simply a victim of a badly designed system which stresses revenue generation for the government over service to passengers.

 
A short quote for critical review from Christian's article:

"I must say, this statement [Alison Forster ... we underestimated demand] is barely credible. First have been running this franchise for ten years and the bidding process requires a huge level of detail about individual passenger flows. The truth is far more likely to be that First hoped to get away with a series of cost saving measures imposed on people travelling at peak times on various unprofitable short journeys. .... First clearly their cuts would pass off with little protest. It was not demand the company underestimated, but the passengers^ reaction!"

Yes, I think that's the crux of the matter.   Christian's article describes how First put in a bid so high that they had to squeeze the passengers .... so it's very much their choice that they're in this mess.  I do understand (point made in other threads) that the DfT controls the chains they're tied up in - but FgW chose to bid for and specify those chains in the first place.

 
Christian Wolmar article , Transport Times , February 2 2007 (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/tt/feb2,07.shtml

 
Christian Wolmar article , Rail 557 , January 31 2007 (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/558.shtml