FGW 5 year direct award

[HowardGWR]

SUrely the DfT still had a fallback that if the deal for the management contract was not satisfactory, then they could have done an 'East Coast', i.e. state takeover? One hopes that the new deal gives genuine incentives to FGW to maintain performance while all the work is taking place.

This must be what pax (and this the DfT) are interested in, rather than any peripheral improvements, such as were discussed above.

 

[Rapidash]

Rail Tech - The Plot Thickens!

Duration of new FGW contract ‘undecided’, DfT says
The Department for Transport (DfT) is negotiating a directly awarded contract for First Great Western (FGW) to continue running services in the south west, but reports that the contract is for five years are “unfounded”.
Media reports have suggested that FGW could receive a five-year ‘extension’ to run the line, but the DfT has stated “we have not yet decided how long that contract will be”.

FGW spokesman Dan Panes told RTM the contract is not an “extension” but a new contract award, and the TOC is having to re-bid for the contract.

He said: “This is not, and will not be, an extension of the current franchise. Just as this current franchise we’re in is not an extension of the previous one.
“It is not true that we’re not having to bid for it. We are having to put a proposal to the DfT, and although they have not gone out to full tender on that, they have lots of options open. This would be a completely new contract with new terms, and that’s why we have got to re-bid, because the DfT have to be happy it offers value for money.”

Panes added that when the DfT issued a procurement notice in March, which they have to do under EU rules, the maximum contract length that could be awarded was five years. “That’s the absolute maximum that they could give us,” he said.

The RMT rail workers’ union, however, has been angered by the potential decision and the “lack of competition”.

Brendon Kelly, from the union, told the BBC: “All the investment at current is coming from the government, nothing is coming from the private operators, they're literally just managing it and sharing out the dividends to their shareholders.

“That’s money we could be spending on the railways.”
A five-year contract would give time for the operator to handle the introduction of Hitachi’s new ‘Super Express’ rolling stock onto the newly-electrified parts of the Great Western.

Panes said FGW would be best-placed to continue as the operator, having been there since the start of the electrification project.

“We think that is the solution that would offer best value for the Department and customers. But ultimately it is the DfT’s decision to see if that argument carries any weight,” he told us.
)

Guess with the loss of FSR, they'll be willing to do a bit more to secure FGW? if its not a DR, but a new franchise bid entirely, isnt 5 years....a bit short? Give 'em ten years and the option to sack them midway if its terrible sure, but give 'em some time to get things rolling properly! I wonder who else will be bidding?

 

[bnm]

No one else is bidding. It's a direct award.

If a deal is not thrashed out then the operator of last resort takes over. i.e. the DfT's Directly Operated Railways.

That won't happen though. DfT under a largely Conservative administration won't want it to happen for ideological reasons. First Group are unlikely to walk away for financial reasons. The company has been struggling for some time now and it's extremely unlikely to give up one of its crown jewels. It's already lost half of its rail franchises in the past few weeks.

What's likely going on at the moment is a bit of bluff and counter bluff over the contract terms. A bit of a poker game with neither side having a particularly strong hand.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I wonder who else will be bidding?

Nobody, unless FGW screw it up.
They are essentially preferred contractor, like the other direct awards.
They have until July 2016 to sort a new contract out.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think they are just describing it as a rebid as EU procurement rules limit the amount of times you can extend a public franchise contract, something like two extensions of 24 months or something. A Five year direct award would certainly break EU procurement rules.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be announced tommorow, only 3.5 years rather than 5.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

To be announced tommorow, only 3.5 years rather than 5.

Announced as a revision to the overall franchising schedule: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prior-information-notice-for-rail-franchising-from-2014
And a chart: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-franchise-schedule

The GW direct award(s) now end March 2019.
According to the Guardian the details are yet to be negotiated with FirstGroup.
Presumably as it will essentially be a management contract, details like rolling stock deployment will be contracted by FGW as and when agreed with the DfT rather than built into the franchise agreement.

 

[WatcherZero]

First chairman been doing interviews today welcoming their extension.

They havent yet been able to agree terms which is probably why its low key rather than proper announcement.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They havent yet been able to agree terms which is probably why its low key rather than proper announcement.

FirstGroup statement: http://otp.investis.com/generic/regulatory-story.aspx?newsid=450858&cid=858
It mentions a further 1-year extension at DfT discretion.
Details still being negotiated.

 

[HowardGWR]

FirstGroup statement: http://otp.investis.com/generic/regulatory-story.aspx?newsid=450858&cid=858
It mentions a further 1-year extension at DfT discretion.
Details still being negotiated.

Do we not feel that, if the point is to ensure experienced management stability with all the proposed changes and given the said changes are in danger of over-running, the 4 and a half years is a dead cert?

 

[ess]

What are the new trains (a whole fleet) for the Thames valley the BBC mentions? Presumably not Crossrail?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JamesRowden]

What are the new trains (a whole fleet) for the Thames valley the BBC mentions? Presumably not Crossrail?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EMUs to operate the Paddington-Reading-Oxford/Newbury routes.

 

[ess]

Do we know which class?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swt_passenger]

Do we know which class?

Perhaps if they really are 'new' the 387s hinted at in Modern Railways and various earlier threads?

Or maybe the 319s mentioned in various earlier DfT papers?

 

[Class377/5]

Perhaps if they really are 'new' the 387s hinted at in Modern Railways and various earlier threads?

Or maybe the 319s mentioned in various earlier DfT papers?

The wording from the BBC is

It is also likely to include a replacement fleet of suburban trains for the Thames Valley.

No mention of new. Just different trains.

 

[ess]

Still amazes me that anyone would ever have considered 2 car class 165s as acceptable for a commuter route out of Paddington. Branch line maybe but Paddington -> Reading?? Amazing

 

[21C101]

Still amazes me that anyone would ever have considered 2 car class 165s as acceptable for a commuter route out of Paddington. Branch line maybe but Paddington -> Reading?? Amazing

Not so long ago (1965) ending the inner London service and closing Acton Main Line, West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall (and presumably although not mentioned the mainline platforms at Westbourne Park) was seriously proposed, to make room for extra services running further out. An express bus from Hayes to Ealing Broadway would replace the trains.

see page 29

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRLT_RailwayPlanForLondon1965.pdf

 

[Andrewlong]

Large listed companies are inherently risk advise to keep shareholders satisfied. Re-tendering in a period of uncertainty and upheaval would have only resulted in DfT achieving a poor franchise price, continuing with the incumbent on a management contract is best value for DfT.

It will be interesting to see what items DfT are prepared to allow funding for in terms of fleet modernisation / life extension, will the HST standard class coaches be refreshed internally or left to degenerate? The regional fleet obviously needs a lot of work will this now happen or will the extension only allow minimum work to keep them operating if replacement is to happen within the next term.?

TOC's currently have no control over rolling stock available, no control over infrastructure and little control over timetables with DfT specifying the lot. The only innovations possible are in on-board service, GWML trains run with high load factors throughout the day ex-pad so there is not much that can be done regarding on board service.

Crossrail poses an interesting problem in terms of paddington>reading IEP/HST services. The now agreed extension of Crossrail to reading could see much of the commuter traffic transfer away from GW to CR for commuters heading to points beyond pad within central London. Equally it could act to funnel more traffic to GW as work locations further east become commutable ex-reading/Thames valley. The former has negative effect on franchise revenues the latter a possible one, assuming that seat capacity is available.

Remember the original Greater Western franchise assumed that HST2 would be fully in service by before the end of franchise (2016) and that no other improvement works would happen. Electrification of the GWML/SWML route was at that point a pipe dream and crossrail a maybe but beyond the proposed franchise term.

Running a franchise tender prior to modernisation or during is massive risk for all parties as highlighted by the WCML modernisation being accompanied by a innovative franchise bid that ended up rather rapidly as a straight management contract when Virgin realised that basic business assumptions about the modernised route where not realistic for various reasons. This franchise has not yet had a commercial re-tendering since original award and will have effectively run for 20 years as a concession.

TOC's are unlikely to make the same mistake again in preparing bids.

Commuters will transfer at Reading to Crossrail for services to Central London defending on a) length of journey and b) cost of a ticket. If it will take an hour to get to Paddington on Crossrail, I will go for fast service every time.

 

[Olaf]

I'm not sure if I'm happy or not about the direct award. I think it could be a good thing with all the changes that are set to happen with electrification and cascading of stock, and FGW have had the franchise now 7 years so should know better than anyone else how to run routes and the service that people on their network want.

I'm of the same mind, but overall I think it is the least risky from the point of view of operations during the migration programs.

The limitation is that as it's only going to last for about 5 years, they aren't going to risk anything that won't pay for itself within the 5 year period. This is also a good thing as others have mentioned as it hopefully means tidying up and repairing the stock. I'd say the main issues that need addressing on the west fleet are:

I think First Rail is in a hard place, the last chance saloon - if it does not get this right and be seen to both improve profitability and customer service levels across the board, it will be finished in the UK from the standpoint of both the Government and its owners.

- The leaking roofs on the 158s + 143s - This summer I've been on three different 158s which have had water leaking through the ceiling.
- The air conditioning on the 158s/166s - The reliability of aircon across the 158s and 166s is far from great.
- Replacement of flooring on some 150s + 158s - Really grimy and would probably be better just to rip it out and fit some new flooring. The carpets on some of the 158s should have been replaced a few years ago. General refurbishment of older fleet which FGW still heavily rely on.
- Addressing overcrowding. Not exclusive to FGW but with the cascading of stock, hopefully FGW will still be allocated a fair amount of stock from this.
- Improved frequency to services - Possibly Weymouth, Worcester, Barnstaple and Brighton.

I suspect that the fleet is too stretched at present to allow vehicles out of service for anything other than essential works. However, by the same measure, I would expect to see several programs in place to address the condition of the retained fleet as new vehicles come into service.

 

[Deerfold]

Commuters will transfer at Reading to Crossrail for services to Central London defending on a) length of journey and b) cost of a ticket. If it will take an hour to get to Paddington on Crossrail, I will go for fast service every time.

Though if they're going to somewhere in central London on the Crossrail route it may be quicker to catch Crossrail from Reading than transfer at Paddington despite the slower journey west of Paddington.

 

[21C101]

Though if they're going to somewhere in central London on the Crossrail route it may be quicker to catch Crossrail from Reading than transfer at Paddington despite the slower journey west of Paddington.

Not sure about that. I think that would more apply to Slough though.

I can see people using Xrail to Reading in evening peak though to get round cheap day returns not being valid from 16.30 to 19.30 between Padd and Reading.

I think a great unknown is what sort of service will run. Will it just be an all stations to Reading or will it go the way of Thameslink in which case Crossrail may eventually reach Newbury and Oxford.

 

[Deerfold]

Not sure about that. I think that would more apply to Slough though.

Those boarding at Reading have a good chance of a seat - some may be happy to trade off for a slower journey (and may then catch a non-Thameslink train home).

I can see people using Xrail to Reading in evening peak though to get round cheap day returns not being valid from 16.30 to 19.30 between Padd and Reading.

In the same way that many slower trains now are not restricted, this may be true. This assumes there are no major changes to restriction codes between now and then.

I think a great unknown is what sort of service will run. Will it just be an all stations to Reading or will it go the way of Thameslink in which case Crossrail may eventually reach Newbury and Oxford.

The suggestion at the moment sees up to 4 trains an hour to Reading (there's 4 confirmed as far as Mainedhead) so may not be too appealing for many commuters.

 

[cactustwirly]

Those boarding at Reading have a good chance of a seat - some may be happy to trade off for a slower journey (and may then catch a non-Thameslink train home).



In the same way that many slower trains now are not restricted, this may be true. This assumes there are no major changes to restriction codes between now and then.



The suggestion at the moment sees up to 4 trains an hour to Reading (there's 4 confirmed as far as Maidenhead) so may not be too appealing for many commuters.

Its 4 to Maidenhead, 2 of which continue to Reading via Twyford

 

[Deerfold]

Its 4 to Maidenhead, 2 of which continue to Reading via Twyford

I though it was but could only find anything official about the number to Maidenhead.

 

[DaiGog]

Could the SWT Waterloo service not terminate at Exeter Central once the stabling facility is installed? If a supplementary service from Axminster to Okehampton (or wherever) comes off then that keeps the link to St Davids, and potentially solves part of the problem with stock movements at EXD at the same time.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could the SWT Waterloo service not terminate at Exeter Central once the stabling facility is installed? If a supplementary service from Axminster to Okehampton (or wherever) comes off then that keeps the link to St Davids, and potentially solves part of the problem with stock movements at EXD at the same time.

There's no real evidence (i.e. nothing in an RUS or route plan) that a 'stabling facility' is even under consideration.

But Exeter St Davids is far better for interchange with XC and GW longer distance services, which is almost certainly why SWT run through Central in the first place.

 

[LateThanNever]

There's no real evidence (i.e. nothing in an RUS or route plan) that a 'stabling facility' is even under consideration.

But Exeter St Davids is far better for interchange with XC and GW longer distance services, which is almost certainly why SWT run through Central in the first place.

Also is there such a great problem with stock movements? Exeter St Davids has got 2 platforms which seem to remain unused for much of the day.

 

[Rapidash]

Also is there such a great problem with stock movements? Exeter St Davids has got 2 platforms which seem to remain unused for much of the day.

P6 seems to be getting used more often these days. (Cardiff services and PGN/PLYM - EXD shuttle?) The bay is still sporadically used for stabling throughout the day.

I'd put my money on P1 at Central getting weekday use if extra platform capacity was needed.

 

[21C101]

P6 seems to be getting used more often these days. (Cardiff services and PGN/PLYM - EXD shuttle?) The bay is still sporadically used for stabling throughout the day.

I'd put my money on P1 at Central getting weekday use if extra platform capacity was needed.

There is also room left to put back platform 4 if they wanted to.

 

[455driver]

Also is there such a great problem with stock movements? Exeter St Davids has got 2 platforms which seem to remain unused for much of the day.

Really, which 2 are they then?

 

[21C101]

Re Waterloo - Barnstaple.

The west of England draft route study (see thread on subject for details) is proposing that the Exmouth services be diverted to Paignton to give a 30 minute interval Paignton to Exmouth metro service.

Barnstaple services are proposed to be diverted to Axminster/Honiton to increase the service on this bit to half hourly. A new loop, location tba, but presumably Whimple, will be needed.

I think that transfer of Barnstaple line to SWT is now more likely and suspect that at least some of those Barnstaple services will end up at Waterloo. Not least because at certain times of the day there is already a half hourly service west of Salisbury and the single line means Barnstaple services will need to be integrated into these as there wont be room for 3 per hour, plus space for diverted GW HSTs even with another loop.