Is the Great Western franchise too big?

[Mordac]

And if so, how should it be divided when it is next awarded. I do think that perhaps it would be better to create a separate franchise to operate Thames Valley suburban services (and the North Downs line), and am unsure but leaning against separating Intercity from Regional services in the West Country.

 

[Suraggu]

With Exeter getting a new depot personally I think having Pad to West of England services with Devon & Cornwall local services in one franchise.

And a London to Bristol/Swansea/Hereford franchise with Bristol locals and Cardiff to pompey.

I believe someone in Government suggested this.

 

[cactustwirly]

And if so, how should it be divided when it is next awarded. I do think that perhaps it would be better to create a separate franchise to operate Thames Valley suburban services (and the North Downs line), and am unsure but leaning against separating Intercity from Regional services in the West Country.

After Crossrail, there won't be much of the thames valley services to separate to make it worthwile.

You could in theory separate the West Services from the Intercity (and Thames valley) services, but I don't see the benefit of doing so.

 

[cactustwirly]

With Exeter getting a new depot personally I think having Pad to West of England services with Devon & Cornwall local services in one franchise.

And a London to Bristol/Swansea/Hereford franchise with Bristol locals and Cardiff to pompey.

I believe someone in Government suggested this.

Separating to WofE services from the Bristol/South Wales/Cotswold could be quite messy. For example: who would operate the Bedwyn semi fasts (they will be using the same trains)?
The AT300s used on the route will also be shared with Oxford fasts as well.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Should the Weymouth-Bristol route go over to South Western?

 

[WatcherZero]

You would be splitting it essentially in to a West of England 1/3rd and 2/3rd. The 1/3rd would become a huge geographic low usage franchise with a lot of stations to maintain with about 3.5m passenger km a year it would become the smallest non-local (e.g. Overground, Merseyrail) franchise and smaller than the 4.5m passenger km of the next smallest TPE which has the advantage of most of its network being maintained by others. The rest of the franchises are in the range of 5.5m to 12m passenger km per year.

 

[Clansman]

In a general sense, one would say it's not, as TOCs like ScotRail of similar/bigger size can demonstrate that large franchises which operate different variations of services in regions hundreds of miles apart can work if managed successfully.

I can't really speak for GWR as I don't use them regularly but given the number of passengers they serve and the number of services they operate, maybe it would be time for a rethink on how it's structured in order to simplify the task at hand.

For a start, the franchise ventures too far into the territory of others. Services to Guildford, Portsmouth, Weymouth, Southampton, Salisbury, Gatwick and Brighton should be handed over to SWT, who already operate services in these areas. Perhaps that also begs the question on SWT's set up also. But in terms of GWR's, splitting the more regional services would be a decent first step.

 

[jimm]

A large part of the Thames Valley GW suburban operation is about to disappear into the hands of TfL - and if a scheme to electrify the gaps on the North Downs Line were ever worked out, that route would probably be better operated by the SW franchise anyway.

Any future Thames Valley franchise would consist of not much more than a bunch of semi-fasts as far as Newbury (and remember Bedwyn starters/terminators will soon be reliant on IET express stock anyway) and Didcot/Oxford. Hardly worth bothering with, frankly.

Those of us who know the Oxford/Cotswold Line area remember what a dog's dinner the old FGW/Thames Trains split of services created at times up to 2004 - and really until 2006 when the new GWML timetable pattern was implemented.

In the middle of the late afternoon peak things used to happen like a GW HST to Oxford and Hereford leaving Paddington at 17.09, followed a few minutes later by a Thames Turbo running fast to Oxford and then on to Worcester in the wake of the HST. The 2006 timetable put a stop to this nonsense, with a half-hourly pattern on the Oxford fast services most of the day and the Cotswold services dovetailing into that.

In a situation where TFL will by 2019 have effective control of the reliefs between London and Maidenhead/Reading, with a few paths for GWR emus and freight allowed on sufferance in between the 345s, the idea that you would then have two TOCs squabbling over the remaining GW-allotted relief line paths and use of the fast lines doesn't bear thinking about. The same goes for splitting GW long-distance services into two (and who gets the GW outer-suburban trains in that scenario?) and then dealing with paths between London and Reading.

 

[dgl]

Should the Weymouth-Bristol route go over to South Western?

Could be sensible if combined with infrastructure improvements that allow a regular through service from Weymouth or Dorchester/Bournemouth to Exeter via the West of England main line or even services to Salisbury and beyond too.
Connections between the south Dorset and south west need to be better esp. as they are both major tourist destinations, especially with the ability to easily do day trips from one to the other, not necessarily for UK tourists but for tourists from further afield that are here for longer and would want the minimum of changes when carrying luggage.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

What - go back to Thames Trains and Wessex + GWR.

No - just have seperate , maybe beefed up local "business units" - with some devolved operations expertise and commercial management at / in Devon and Cornwall / Bristol / Reading -Oxford / Cardiff.

No need for more HQ costs - a bright idea would be to call them "Area Managers" - like BR had pre 1994.

 

[coppercapped]

No.

The real GWR had an excellent reputation and some people still pine for the restoration of the 'Big 4'. It casts a long shadow...

A small management team ran the entire railway from Paddington to Birkenhead, Pwllheli, Fishguard, Milford Haven and Penzance from offices in a couple of floors in the Paddington station building.

Maybe it should be tried again...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There was this notion of a Devon+Cornwall micro-franchise, managed locally.
But that sort of devolution seems to have gone off the agenda.
It was never clear if it was just for local trains or included long-distance services.
The south-western services will in any case be transformed by the various new and cascaded trains before the next franchise is let.

I think the split between GWR and W&B in South Wales is not right.
Currently GWR has a monopoly through the Severn Tunnel.
It's not obvious why W&B should not be operating some of those services.
One of them should also be able to work into Birmingham (via Worcester).

The future of XC is important too, which will come up for refranchising at about the same time.
The XC "regional" 170-operated services still don't look right to me.

 

[Parallel]

I think generally one big GWR franchise works okay. I think it works better than the likes of three seperate ones like from the past. I think Weymouth - Bristol is fine under GWR as a vast amount of traffic travels to and from around the Bristol area. The trains also serve the local villages and towns of around Bristol too. I think the focus of the route is more on the GWR 'area' than Weymouth too for these services (apart from summer but then people travel from the GWR area to the beach). Proper improvements to service frequencies will not happen for a long time, regardless of who operates the route.

The same for Cardiff - Portsmouths, one of the most profitable services in the west. The focus again, I'd argue is Bristol. I don't think these trains should be split though if the current model is working so well with passenger numbers, and I don't think SWR would be able to offer much more than the 5-coach trains proposed for the line by GWR.

You could probably hand over Reading - Basingstoke to SWR if you wanted, but again, what is the point? Reading is by far the busiest station of the two.

--

Despite one operator, it's kind of three seperate ones anyway. The local services in the Thames Valley do not overlap with those in the Bristol region. The HSTs very very rarely turn up on services not HST booked in the west country (Though I have seen a HST on a Westbury - Bristol stopper before!!)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

No.

The real GWR had an excellent reputation and some people still pine for the restoration of the 'Big 4'. It casts a long shadow...

A small management team ran the entire railway from Paddington to Birkenhead, Pwllheli, Fishguard, Milford Haven and Penzance from offices in a couple of floors in the Paddington station building.

Maybe it should be tried again...

Because the real GWR had devolved , competent regional management teams called District Officers , who were "Mr GWR" to local communities and businesses. Paddington did not interfere with the timings of say the last Saturday evening Exetter to Barnstaple or similar.

The BR structure in the late 1980's had some brilliant managers at Exeter , Oxford and Swansea (will not name for obvious reasons) , who ran their patches well and were firmly tuned into the engineering functions ,developed local interests commercially , and even managed to reduce costs while providing an ever improving service. At less subsidy than today.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It would be exceptionally difficult to unpick the complexities and interworking of the various parts of the franchise IMO. Large franchises create economies of scale with engineering, workforce, etc which reduces costs. Given the high subsidies of the south west region we want more economies, not greater duplication.

Also - regarding the Weymouth line - probably not many people know this, but the franchise specification is for a Weymouth-Westbury service. To my knowledge there is no specific requirement to run through trains from Bristol. The Bristol-Westbury route is again specified separately, as is Westbury-Southampton local (the Dilton flyer). GWR operates these as through services for operational convenience and because it makes commercial sense. If SWT got given the Weymouth operation, I suspect this would result in a reduced number of through workings (or needless duplication between Westbury-Bristol) and certainly loss of the useful direct peak services to Filton and Bristol Parkway which generate a lot of commuter traffic.

Best left alone in my view.

 

[Mag_seven]

Leave it alone - the last thing we need is the inertia that yet another re-org brings.

 

[Envoy]

As things stand, you can get reasonably priced through tickets from Gatwick to other places on the GWR. Every time we seem to have to change operator en-route, the price usually shoots up if through tickets are purchased. This appears to be caused by the failure to link advance ticket prices at points where people must change trains/TOC. Cardiff to Edinburgh is a case in point where ATW would be used as far as Crewe and then Virgin. (Check out the through prices v a split at Crewe). Having said that, a day return from Bristol to Weymouth is quite reasonably priced. Check out a day return from Cardiff to Weymouth and you get a big hike in price compared to split tickets. The ironic thing here is that it is all GWR!

Passengers also don’t like changing trains. Through journeys encourage more passengers. So, it is far better to retain large area GWR than split the region up.

PS> BBC West News has just announced that Chris Grayling is visiting Bristol today (6 July, 2017) to see the ‘modern’ trains that are being introduced to replace sprinters.

 

[Parallel]

. PS> BBC West News has just announced that Chris Grayling is visiting Bristol today (6 July, 2017) to see the ‘modern’ trains that are being introduced to replace sprinters.

He's going to Bristol to see a Turbo? Surely he could just go to Reading or Paddington for that.

 

[DarloRich]

What - go back to Thames Trains and Wessex + GWR.

No - just have seperate , maybe beefed up local "business units" - with some devolved operations expertise and commercial management at / in Devon and Cornwall / Bristol / Reading -Oxford / Cardiff.

No need for more HQ costs - a bright idea would be to call them "Area Managers" - like BR had pre 1994.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the sensible answer.

 

[HH]

I'm not convinced that other services get the attention they need when the main business is InterCity. IC operators have always seen themselves as superior to commuter/rural ones and I don't think GWR are an exception.

Moreover, when you think of the problems Connex had in trying to run Southern/SE together and what's happening with GTR, I do think that an Operator can get too large. TOCs have already tried Area Managers and they are not a magic bullet. What happens then has been amply demonstrated by NR as well - there is constant fighting between the areas and the centre.

But, given the size of SWF, I don't see hiving anything more off to them as a solution either.

 

[Mainline421]

Generally speaking yes, as obviously overlapping franchises have advantages as they can promote competition and offer alternatives for passengers during industrial action. But GWR is an exception as there is no sensible way you could break it up. Simply separating local and long distance services like in Wessex/Thames Trains days will only disadvantage passengers, and GWR seems to work fine despite the complexity.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I'm not convinced that other services get the attention they need when the main business is InterCity. IC operators have always seen themselves as superior to commuter/rural ones and I don't think GWR are an exception.

Moreover, when you think of the problems Connex had in trying to run Southern/SE together and what's happening with GTR, I do think that an Operator can get too large. TOCs have already tried Area Managers and they are not a magic bullet. What happens then has been amply demonstrated by NR as well - there is constant fighting between the areas and the centre.

But, given the size of SWF, I don't see hiving anything more off to them as a solution either.

Apart from the staff hostility towards Connex (French) management , the deep and severe cuts to both middle and "HQ" layers of management made he whole operation severely bad news. Not helped of course by a suicide bid for South Eastern. I digress , "Proper" Area management would involve (yes - old BR again) , an Area Operations Centre which would manage in real time the operations , backed up by what I said before. I recall , for example the Watford one which ran everything class 2 and freight south of Rugby to Barking , Richmond etc - leaving Crewe as level 1 Control to worry about the longer distance services etc. Worked well - as people focused on their patch.

 

[HH]

Apart from the staff hostility towards Connex (French) management , the deep and severe cuts to both middle and "HQ" layers of management made he whole operation severely bad news. Not helped of course by a suicide bid for South Eastern. I digress , "Proper" Area management would involve (yes - old BR again) , an Area Operations Centre which would manage in real time the operations , backed up by what I said before. I recall , for example the Watford one which ran everything class 2 and freight south of Rugby to Barking , Richmond etc - leaving Crewe as level 1 Control to worry about the longer distance services etc. Worked well - as people focused on their patch.

Things have moved on. You couldn't have an old style Area Operations Centre now because you have these massive ROCs that cross over NR Regions, not to mention all the other complications, like multiple TOCs, FOCs and OAOs.

Besides, while area management can be good, it can also be bad - it very much depends on the quality of management. The tendency towards centralisation has been caused by the desire to have a consistency of delivery that you don't get in an area structure (indeed Connex is a great example of what happens when areas are allowed to go their own way). That wouldn't go away even if we had a "new BR" as it's now the accepted norm.

 

[jimm]

I'm not convinced that other services get the attention they need when the main business is InterCity. IC operators have always seen themselves as superior to commuter/rural ones and I don't think GWR are an exception.

And GWR have done such a terrible jobs of managing the West Country branches, haven't they? There's ever such a slight difference in traffic levels since 2006.

Or getting as many extra dmus as they could for the West services generally and getting some 180s back and taking the 150/0s to free up Turbos for the Thames Valley suburban routes.

Neglect all the way...

 

[cactustwirly]

I'm not convinced that other services get the attention they need when the main business is InterCity. IC operators have always seen themselves as superior to commuter/rural ones and I don't think GWR are an exception.

I disagree, GWR are one of the better regional TOCs.
I haven't travelled on GA or EMT, but they are much better than Northern and ATW

In the Thames Valley HSTs are used on some peak time services to provide extra capacity. Which would not be possible if they were separate franchises.

 

[HH]

I disagree, GWR are one of the better regional TOCs.
I haven't travelled on GA or EMT, but they are much better than Northern and ATW

In the Thames Valley HSTs are used on some peak time services to provide extra capacity. Which would not be possible if they were separate franchises.

OK. Things have improved since Mark Hopwood arrived. I recall all the issues when they first took over Wessex Trains though; and what happened when they first took over Thames Trains - ask any ex-TT staff.

 

[coppercapped]

OK. Things have improved since Mark Hopwood arrived. I recall all the issues when they first took over Wessex Trains though; and what happened when they first took over Thames Trains - ask any ex-TT staff.

Ye Gods! Thames Trains ceased to exist 13 years ago, repeat THIRTEEN years ago - what relevance can that have for today?

 

[HH]

Ye Gods! Thames Trains ceased to exist 13 years ago, repeat THIRTEEN years ago - what relevance can that have for today?

Really?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[g4mby]

I think generally one big GWR franchise works okay. I think it works better than the likes of three seperate ones like from the past.

Really?

The last time I attempted to travel on GWR from a local station within the Bristol area the ticket machine was out of order and the ticket office was closed. The member of staff on duty was refusing to sell tickets and advised the 30 or so waiting passengers to buy a ticket on the train. How would that even be possible when the conductor also needs to open/close the doors and perform other duties on such a short journey into Bristol? Anyone needing to buy a ticket in order to leave a station is then inconvenienced by having to buy a ticket at their destination and often have to queue in order to do so.

No, we need an operator that better looks after passengers who make local journeys than GWR do now.

 

[takno]

Really?

The last time I attempted to travel on GWR from a local station within the Bristol area the ticket machine was out of order and the ticket office was closed. The member of staff on duty was refusing to sell tickets and advised the 30 or so waiting passengers to buy a ticket on the train. How would that even be possible when the conductor also needs to open/close the doors and perform other duties on such a short journey into Bristol? Anyone needing to buy a ticket in order to leave a station is then inconvenienced by having to buy a ticket at their destination and often have to queue in order to do so.

No, we need an operator that better looks after passengers who make local journeys than GWR do now.

So GWR can't run local trains because one of their ticket machines was out of order once?