FCC : Another 'worse' Title

[anti-pacer]

excuse me? i dont recall
slamming
anyone. This is a forum for discussing and sharing views. You dont like pacers or Northern, I accept that, but I do think its a bit shamefull that so many on here use a short formed bus seat 142 on there journey home as an excuse to give the entire toc a hard time.
They opperate everything from loss making rural services to wedged full commuter routes and IMHO manage it well given what they have to manage with. I certainly dont think from my own experience that they handle disruption nearly as badly as FCC or Scotrail!

I partly accept that they are "limited" with resources, but it's the reluctance to plough money into their services. They've had their franchise, what, 6 years or so now, and are only starting to refurbish some of their shoddy stock.

The DafT don't help either, clearly, with their anti-North stance on investing in new stock. Don't they realise that decent trains go a long way to create a decent service. If you're going to attract people from car to train, you need to make it attractive.

Look at both the Airedale and Wharfedale lines here in West Yorkshire. When new trains were introduced in 2000/1 passenger numbers rose dramatically.

I've heard comments from fellow passengers on the train about the appalling state of the stock.

Northerners pay rail fares too, so surely we deserve some new stock for once.

 

[broadgage]

The problems on FCC are not just the age of the rolling stock, which is indeed largely outside the control of the TOC.
Many of the problems that I see are worsened by either no announcments or inaccurate ones.
"tickets will be acepted by buses and underground for any reasonable alternative route" When I tried that I was "fined" a penalty fare for useing the underground without a valid ticket. I appealed and eventually got my money back, but after considerable time, trouble, and expense.

On another day my FCC ticket was not accepted on a bus, despite announcments to the contary, so it cost me an extra £5 to get home a couple of hours late.

FCC are very keen on issueing on the spot penalty fares, perhaps this should work both ways? If they are not able to provide an effective service, perhaps the paseenger should be entitled to say £20 ON THE SPOT immediatly.
If they dont have enough money they should be required to give their name and address with a view to court action.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

...."tickets will be acepted by buses and underground for any reasonable alternative route" When I tried that I was "fined" a penalty fare for useing the underground without a valid ticket. I appealed and eventually got my money back, but after considerable time, trouble, and expense.

On another day my FCC ticket was not accepted on a bus, despite announcments to the contary, so it cost me an extra £5 to get home a couple of hours late....

The problem in these examples may not lie with FCC, though they undoubtedly face the criticism and complaint. For example, if FCC and LUL agree passage of tickets, but Underground staff don't have this information passed on to them, it's not FCC's fault, nor the staff 'on the ground', but actually communication within LUL.

With the buses there may be issues getting the information around to the staff that tickets are being accepted, again there isn't much FCC can do in that situation.

There are certainly times when communication within the railway isn't as good as it should be, but it is not always obvious where the blame actually lies.

 

[tbtc]

The DafT don't help either, clearly, with their anti-North stance on investing in new stock

Please stop with the conspiracy theory stuff.

There are 170, 175, 180s, 185, 220s, 221s, 222s, 350s and 390s running around "the north". Are they new enough for you?

The problem with stock is the lack of investement in local DMUs across England and Wales - whether that's 143s at FGW, 142s at ATW, singe 153s at GA - the national focus on longer distance routes has meant we've had lots of middle distance DMUs and longer distance DMUs (170s, 175s, 180s, 185s...) but only a few dozen shorter "local" DMUs (the handful of 172s).

That's not an agenda against "the north" - however paranoid you want to sound.

 

[asylumxl]

The problem in these examples may not lie with FCC, though they undoubtedly face the criticism and complaint. For example, if FCC and LUL agree passage of tickets, but Underground staff don't have this information passed on to them, it's not FCC's fault, nor the staff 'on the ground', but actually communication within LUL.

With the buses there may be issues getting the information around to the staff that tickets are being accepted, again there isn't much FCC can do in that situation.

There are certainly times when communication within the railway isn't as good as it should be, but it is not always obvious where the blame actually lies.

Whenever I've had issues I just load National Rail Enquiries on my phone and show them the relevant update. This usually sorts things out.

 

[W230]

For me, the idea of being a regular user of FCC is painfull but I wooder if anybody else could do better? Would it all be happy ever after if the 319s were reliveried in say Stagecoach swoops?

Lots of commuters complain about the problems in the peak, so lets take a typical hour in the peak. Looking at the departures for an hour from St Pancras, FCC have 22 trains.

Taking the same hour for Hull Trains departures next door at King's Cross, there is one.

When you also take into account that FCC will be sharing the northern part of TL with EMT (who have another 13 arrivals/departures in the same time) and the southern part of TL with SET and Southern (another two commuter operators providing high frequency services) you can see that things will go wrong. Frankly, i'm amazed they don't go wrong more often...

The other obvious problem is that if something goes wrong at, say, Wivelsfield, it will have a knock on effect at Bedford. You only have to look at the FCC website to see when an early morning train is cancelled, the cancellations have a knock on effect on the rest of the day. Or even crap weather - snow in the South Downs? How dare that affect my journey from Flitwick to Harlington!

Coupled with the fact that there are no more trains to use, they simply don't exist -what does anyone suggest FCC do? What is quite amusing is that if we were still in BR/NSE days this would all be directed at them. But as the TOC operating the route FCC take all the flak!

However, I do accept that there need to be more platform staff at stations during disruption (or even during the rest of the time). But you will simply never please the commuter - it is not possible!

 

[asylumxl]

But you will simply never please the commuter - it is not possible!

Here here!

Also seems worth adding that, on TL North at least, only 3 stations are truly staffed (St Albans, Luton, Bedford). This results in a lack of information for other stations on route where there are no dispatch stuff or such.

 

[87015]

However, I do accept that there need to be more platform staff at stations during disruption (or even during the rest of the time). But you will simply never please the commuter - it is not possible!

How do c2c come out as joint top franchised TOC for overall satisfaction then, as they are even more commuter orientated than FCC.
The vast majority of commuters, as regular passengers, understand that things will go wrong - it is how you deal with them that counts and the experience you get day-to-day when there is no disruption that drives these scores. FCC (well TL, I don't use GN) are awful at the first count and regardless of argued cause the severe overcrowding means it is a rancid journey every day for most.

 

[A-driver]

How do c2c come out as joint top franchised TOC for overall satisfaction then, as they are even more commuter orientated than FCC.
.

Simple. C2C have a very simple little private line they use. Pretty much every train stops everywhere , no long distance trains get in the way, only the very occasional freight.

C2C is more like a light railway than a commuter line. You can't begin up compare the operations of C2C with any company like FCC, SET, southern etc.

If FCC had sole use of the themes link lines they would do far far better.

 

[tbtc]

How do c2c come out as joint top franchised TOC for overall satisfaction then, as they are even more commuter orientated than FCC.
The vast majority of commuters, as regular passengers, understand that things will go wrong - it is how you deal with them that counts and the experience you get day-to-day when there is no disruption that drives these scores. FCC (well TL, I don't use GN) are awful at the first count and regardless of argued cause the severe overcrowding means it is a rancid journey every day for most.

It may be because the old LTS line hasn't had much in the way of infrastructure disruption to delay trains (compared to the long running Thameslink work) and the fact that the "simple" operation (only one route west of Barking and only one type of train) mean that its quite simple to get things back on track when there is a problem (compared to FCC who's 319s probably take five hours to do a Bedford - Brighton - Bedford cycle, so if they are out of place because of a problem then it might be hard to get them back into synch).

As for HT being so "good", a part of that may be the fact that a significant part of their passenger numbers come from those who've chosen HT specific tickets because they are cheaper than GC/ East Coast, so less likely to complain (compared to harassed commuters into London who feel like they have no other option).

 

[Firestarter]

The problems on FCC are not just the age of the rolling stock, which is indeed largely outside the control of the TOC.
Many of the problems that I see are worsened by either no announcments or inaccurate ones.
"tickets will be acepted by buses and underground for any reasonable alternative route" When I tried that I was "fined" a penalty fare for useing the underground without a valid ticket. I appealed and eventually got my money back, but after considerable time, trouble, and expense.

On another day my FCC ticket was not accepted on a bus, despite announcments to the contary, so it cost me an extra £5 to get home a couple of hours late.

FCC are very keen on issueing on the spot penalty fares, perhaps this should work both ways? If they are not able to provide an effective service, perhaps the paseenger should be entitled to say £20 ON THE SPOT immediatly.
If they dont have enough money they should be required to give their name and address with a view to court action.

Court action against who? FCC or the revenue staff?:-?:-?

 

[W230]

How do c2c come out as joint top franchised TOC for overall satisfaction then, as they are even more commuter orientated than FCC.

No idea. However, I travelled on C2C outside the rush hour and was extremely impressed by them. Trains every 20 minutes from Fenchurch Street on clean new trains. However, FCC don't have new trains (not much they can do about this) and I believe that C2C have the added advantage of being possibly the only TOC to run on the line between Fenchurch St/Shoeburyness (quite happy to be corrected).

This makes it more of a closed system to them and means that they will not suffer the knock on effects from other problems with other TOCs. Also they have far, far, less route miles and don't have to connect between two sides of London.

The vast majority of commuters, as regular passengers, understand that things will go wrong - it is how you deal with them that counts and the experience you get day-to-day when there is no disruption that drives these scores. FCC (well TL, I don't use GN) are awful at the first count...

Fully agree that there is not enough information out there. I'm not trying to defend that side of it. I always feel sorry for platform staff who are at the mercy of decisions made behind closed doors. But again, the complexity of the route does not lead to problems being easily solved - and as already mentioned a problem miles away can have severe knock on effect elsewhere.

I'm beginning to wonder if they'd be better off abandoning the link in Thameslink and terminating all northbound services at Blackfriars and all southbound at St Pancras or Farringdon. While that would probably improve the reliability because of the reduction of problems in the north affecting the south etc, people wanting to travel at least part way though London would suffer, the tube would get busier still and I doubt there would be the capacity to terminate services from the north at STP anyway.

...and regardless of argued cause the severe overcrowding means it is a rancid journey every day for most.

I like this bit, though I should add that I don't disagree - it is a rancid journey.

What would you prefer? They already have 22 trains leaving from STP in a typical peak hour. Maybe 40 tph? 60 tph? Or maybe some 20 car-train lengths?

Where do we get the stock from? How exactly do we squeeze them into the already rammed working timetable?

Not to mention upsetting all those people elsewhere "I see the South East is getting all the new trains again..."

 

[Harlesden]

there is that I guess, but theres is almost definately the views of people like me who simply hate first and everything they do and stand for.
]

Not sure I understand the logic of an inidividual "hating" a company that they are not significantly a part of. I am currently in a bitter dispute with the DWP but I would never say I "hate" the DWP as such a statement makes no sense to me and is totally illogical.
In the case of a TOC, many things happen that are totally outside their control and which they cannot be blamed for.

 

[transmanche]

Not sure I understand the logic of an inidividual "hating" a company that they are not significantly a part of. [...] In the case of a TOC, many things happen that are totally outside their control and which they cannot be blamed for.

Yes, there are many things that happen which are outside the control of a TOC. But what is within the control of the TOC is how it reacts to that problem and how it keeps its customers informed.

Take a look at the RAIB report into an incident near Kentish Town on 26 May 2011. A train failed and was stranded for three hours. The initial cause of the failure was outside the control of the TOC - foliage got caught in the pantograph. But FCC's reaction to the problem was poor and some of the causal and underlying factors identified by RAIB make a damning indictment of management failure:

• Despite the problems experienced on train 1W95 at St. Pancras, FCC allowed it to continue to Kentish Town with passengers on board, despite the risk that the train might fail
• FCC gave only limited consideration to a range of possible strategies for rescuing train 1W95 and its passengers and at an early stage focused solely on the use of an assisting train for moving train 1W95 and its passengers to Kentish Town
• Only limited information was provided to the passengers on train 1W95 during the first 45 minutes of the incident and no information was provided after that time
• FCC’s policy for handling incidents involving stranded trains was not applied
• The driver of train 1W95 was not given adequate support during the incident, which affected his ability to manage the conditions on board the train
• FCC had not briefed its policy on stranded trains to all key staff prior to the incident
• FCC’s competence management regime did not equip staff involved in the incident with the skills to perform some of the necessary key tasks
• Between 2009 and 2011, FCC had investigated a number of incidents involving trains becoming stranded for extended periods of time, but had not implemented measures to improve its handling of such incidents
• Relevant safety lessons had been identified in performance-focused reviews on a number of occasions before the incident at Kentish Town on 26 May 2011, but no action had been taken
• FCC’s management had not identified or addressed deficiencies in the processes for emergency preparedness prior to the incident

Now this isn't the place to open up another discussion on that incident, I mention it merely to highlight some of the things that are within a TOCs control.

So whilst the lack of stock, lack of paths and the ongoing Thameslink construction work are outside the TOCs control. All the things listed above are within their control - and areas where FCC have been found severely wanting.

So if you're a passenger who's been caught up in such an incident (or even one caught in the disruption following the incident) I can well understand how you might 'hate' First Group in general and FCC in particular.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

So can I assume you live in the Borehamwood or Mill Hill area? Was the Northern Line not running?

South of Radlett there are alternatives as I'm sure you know. For Borehamwood there is Barnet/Edgeware/Watford and a variety of buses. Further north there aren't so many alternatives so that's obviously the logic behind the decision.

All fine and well if they bother to tell you that there will be a two hour gap. As I said earlier it is the lack of information that is often more of a problem than the actual problem.
If it was a one off I would still commute with them - it wasn't and I no longer do. I may gave the new operator a try when FCC lose the franchise.

 

[anti-pacer]

Please stop with the conspiracy theory stuff.

There are 170, 175, 180s, 185, 220s, 221s, 222s, 350s and 390s running around "the north". Are they new enough for you?

The problem with stock is the lack of investement in local DMUs across England and Wales - whether that's 143s at FGW, 142s at ATW, singe 153s at GA - the national focus on longer distance routes has meant we've had lots of middle distance DMUs and longer distance DMUs (170s, 175s, 180s, 185s...) but only a few dozen shorter "local" DMUs (the handful of 172s).

That's not an agenda against "the north" - however paranoid you want to sound.

Northern Rail as an operator has shoddy stock!

The newer stock you mention are all operated by TOC's, many of which aren't 'northern' operators, they just operate services through our patch.

I appreciate that ATW and FGW, GA and also EMT have similar stock, bit NONE are riddled with the number of Pacers that Northern is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Northern Rail is the biggest TOC in England, covering 5 PTE areas (as well as the rural counties), but still we get nothing but cascaded stock, which they had to practically beg for! Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the old age of FCC's stock. Stock that we're likely to get up here!

The day the DfT includes in its Northern franchise requirements, new EMU's and say, 172's, to replace the crap we have to travel around on, will be the day I will be convinced that the DfT cares about the local Northern commuter!

 

[broadgage]

The problem in these examples may not lie with FCC, though they undoubtedly face the criticism and complaint. For example, if FCC and LUL agree passage of tickets, but Underground staff don't have this information passed on to them, it's not FCC's fault, nor the staff 'on the ground', but actually communication within LUL.

With the buses there may be issues getting the information around to the staff that tickets are being accepted, again there isn't much FCC can do in that situation.

There are certainly times when communication within the railway isn't as good as it should be, but it is not always obvious where the blame actually lies.

This is true, but I suppose they cant really announce "No southbound services tonight, your ticket might be accepted on bus or underground services, but do not count on it. In case of diffeculty or doubt, pay a penalty fare and then take a few hours of arguing to get it back"

Since FCC seldom manage a whole week without disruption, other operators should be fairly used to accepting FCC tickets by now.

 

[Manchester77]

Anti-pacer, who operates the 333s and 323s?

Before you say that I don't understand I too commute using northern and they really aren't as bad as you say. They have done a lot to get as many additional units as they can despite operating a no growth franchise. When they refurbish units they don't do a bad job, just look at the 156s. They have done their best with pacers and yes I'd live to see the same level of investment that the south has but wind the clock back to 1993 most of the southern commuter lines had slammers while the north and regional railways were getting 14Xs and 15Xs. The promise of networkers was slowly happening but when you look at the big picture most services were mark I derived EMUs.

Improvements to our region are just round the corner 319s, 350s, new TPE stock for north TP electrification (possibly 377s), withdrawal of pacers. You can't just have tunnel vision you have to look at the whole picture spanning the next 10 years.

 

[anti-pacer]

Anti-pacer, who operates the 333s and 323s?

Before you say that I don't understand I too commute using northern and they really aren't as bad as you say. They have done a lot to get as many additional units as they can despite operating a no growth franchise. When they refurbish units they don't do a bad job, just look at the 156s. They have done their best with pacers and yes I'd live to see the same level of investment that the south has but wind the clock back to 1993 most of the southern commuter lines had slammers while the north and regional railways were getting 14Xs and 15Xs. The promise of networkers was slowly happening but when you look at the big picture most services were mark I derived EMUs.

Improvements to our region are just round the corner 319s, 350s, new TPE stock for north TP electrification (possibly 377s), withdrawal of pacers. You can't just have tunnel vision you have to look at the whole picture spanning the next 10 years.

Yes and look at the South East now.

I don't see 319's as an improvement, but 350's and hopefully 377's yes, but they're for TPE services. Northern however will be stuck with the same shoddy stock, with a few less Pacers. However, as has been mentioned before, Pacers will be with us long after 2019.

The 323's and 333's are pretty good units, fair enough, but new build EMU's for the newly wired routes, and a batch of 172's is what we deserve. The West Midlands has that so why can't we?

 

[tbtc]

Northern Rail as an operator has shoddy stock!

You said that the DfT have an "anti-North stance".

Now you appear to be moving the goalposts?

I've explained a couple of times that the problem is the lack of modern "local" DMUs (which affects FGW/ EMT/ ATW/ GA too), rather than some persecution of Northeners, but I suppose that doesn't suit your agenda.

The newer stock you mention are all operated by TOC's, many of which aren't 'northern' operators, they just operate services through our patch

If you use a 390 from Stockport to Manchester or a 180 from Halifax to Wakefield or a 350 from Runcorn to Liverpool or a 220/221 from Leeds to York then I don't think you'll feel that you're not on a "proper" northern operator - these are modern trains running in/ through/ to/ from the "north.

Or do you think that passengers think these are soft southern trains?

 

[anti-pacer]

You said that the DfT have an "anti-North stance".

Now you appear to be moving the goalposts?

I've explained a couple of times that the problem is the lack of modern "local" DMUs (which affects FGW/ EMT/ ATW/ GA too), rather than some persecution of Northeners, but I suppose that doesn't suit your agenda.



If you use a 390 from Stockport to Manchester or a 180 from Halifax to Wakefield or a 350 from Runcorn to Liverpool or a 220/221 from Leeds to York then I don't think you'll feel that you're not on a "proper" northern operator - these are modern trains running in/ through/ to/ from the "north.

Or do you think that passengers think these are soft southern trains?

The main operator in the North of England is Northern Rail so let's compare like for like. Maybe I should have said the DfT are anti-Northern Rail franchise.

If you use a 142 between Leeds and Sheffield, bouncing along on a train that as many have said are fit for the scrapyard, your perception would be much different than being on a 390 between Stockport and Piccadilly.

We have CASCADED 150's that London Midland no longer wanted to use on their LOCAL services, so they got brand new 172's.

New stock wasn't part of the deal when Northern got the franchise due to forecasted "no growth". Northern have seen growth, quite a lot, but will new stock be part of the next franchise, based on the growth we've seen up here?

Quick answer to that.... NO! We'll get cascaded stock as always!

DfT are anti-Northern Rail franchise, not the trains that pass through northern regions. Sorry, I should have made that clear(er).

 

[87015]

Maybe I should have said the DfT are anti-Northern Rail franchise.

It receives massive support from the DfT - about £300m a year I believe. In a railway built on business cases I think Northern do pretty well out of the DfT, not sure how much of a blank cheque you think it should be given.

 

[anti-pacer]

It receives massive support from the DfT - about £300m a year I believe. In a railway built on business cases I think Northern do pretty well out of the DfT, not sure how much of a blank cheque you think it should be given.

Just enough to be able to provide some much needed, up to standard, stock!

 

[northwichcat]

Northern? Not scoring highly on a customer satisfaction survey?

Really?

I think Northern actually perform more poorly now in passenger surveys then they did before they got the cascaded LM units.

Maybe it was the 180s and 156s that were helping their scores? (Some of the 156s being lost to EMT so less people get 156s on a daily basis.)

Or maybe they over-promised when they got the cascaded stock? The cascaded 150s aren't in a good state and they can be seen running services in 2 car formation which were previously mainly 156s or refurbished 150s. While a number of the strengthened services frequently are short formed and some very overcrowded services remained as 2 car.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It receives massive support from the DfT - about £300m a year I believe. In a railway built on business cases I think Northern do pretty well out of the DfT, not sure how much of a blank cheque you think it should be given.

But the same DfT makes them run loss-making parliamentaries on lines that weren't properly shut down by British Rail and that made them use class 180s on local services that were expensive to run because FGW wanted to keep the 142s that they had subleased to cover refurbishments until they got extra capacity.

Due to an exponential growth in passenger numbers a lot of subsidy money has been returned to DfT but only limited support has been given by DfT for extra capacity.

 

[tbtc]

The main operator in the North of England is Northern Rail so let's compare like for like

If you are comparing "like for like" then you should compare Northern to the old Valley Lines services and the old Wessex services.

Neither have seen any post-privatisation units for their local DMU services, just like Northern. Same with the local DMU services of EMT that used to be part of Central Trains. Only fair to compare local DMU services in "the north" to local DMU services run by other TOCs.

Maybe I should have said the DfT are anti-Northern Rail franchise

Maybe. But you didn't. Sorry for trying to debate with the point that you were previously making!

If you use a 142 between Leeds and Sheffield, bouncing along on a train that as many have said are fit for the scrapyard, your perception would be much different than being on a 390 between Stockport and Piccadilly

If you are using a 142 between Leeds and Sheffield then you're presumably on a Dearne Valley or Castleford stopper that takes around eighty minutes.

That would be a long time of a Pacer. But you'd be ignoring the hourly XC service (a shiny modern Voyager that takes half the time that the Pacer takes - even if you class XC as a non-northern franchise) and you'd be ignoring the half hourly Northern semi-fast via Barnsley that takes an hour.

So, anyone taking a 142 from Leeds to Sheffield would be some kind of Pacer-fetishist

New stock wasn't part of the deal when Northern got the franchise due to forecasted "no growth". Northern have seen growth, quite a lot

It was "no growth", but we've seen a 30% increase in capacity. More evidence that someone hates us?

 

[Bald Rick]

!

If you are using a 142 between Leeds and Sheffield then you're presumably on a Dearne Valley or Castleford stopper that takes around eight minutes.

Gosh if they are that quick can we have them down south? What's all the whinging about?

 

[tbtc]

Gosh if they are that quick can we have them down south? What's all the whinging about?

I might have to check that for a slight typo

 

[anti-pacer]

It was "no growth", but we've seen a 30% increase in capacity. More evidence that someone hates us?

We'll see when the franchise is up for renewal.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Gosh if they are that quick can we have them down south? What's all the whinging about?

Don't forget the 185 fleet and the cascaded 170 sets on TPE are pretty smart. I don't hear too much grief from Cardiff re 142 and 143 sets (in fact I was on a 143 down there yesterday and for a 20 min journey was fine !)

The DfT has been extremely supportive in funding the Northern hub and the large programme of electrification. Not exactly "anti - North" is it ?

 

[anti-pacer]

Don't forget the 185 fleet and the cascaded 170 sets on TPE are pretty smart. I don't hear too much grief from Cardiff re 142 and 143 sets (in fact I was on a 143 down there yesterday and for a 20 min journey was fine !)

The DfT has been extremely supportive in funding the Northern hub and the large programme of electrification. Not exactly "anti - North" is it ?

So you'd be happy with 142/143's on your Hertfordshire lines?