GWR Reprimanded for misleading statements about ownership

[Andyh82]

Of course it works both ways.

When a lack of or poor quality of rolling stock is the issue, the customers think the train operator is entirely at fault and hence have a go at them. For some reason the train operators don't seem to like to blame the DFT, although the general public probably still wouldn't understand.

Therefore when new stock is introduced, it's only fair for them to take all the credit.

The same goes for infrastructure.

 

[Greeby]

Yes, because publically owned British Rail is renowned for how well loved it was by the travelling public. The grass is always greener... :roll:

Pretending to be publicly owned isn't that bad a strategy. It worked for British Rail and every other state-owned entity for their entire existence.

 

[JohnR]

The FGW/GWR adverts, press releases and website utterings that have been bothering me over recent months are the ones that are along the lines of, "We are investing £7.5bn in the west's railways."

Very often with no mention of Network Rail whatsoever. Implying that the investment money is coming from FGW/GWR.

And GWR have just started implying they are investing in new trains for London to the South West. Those AT300s/Class 802s are being funded by a RoSCo.

Why Virgin West Coast seem to have got away with that for the last 20 years.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course it works both ways.

When a lack of or poor quality of rolling stock is the issue, the customers think the train operator is entirely at fault and hence have a go at them. For some reason the train operators don't seem to like to blame the DFT, although the general public probably still wouldn't understand.

Therefore when new stock is introduced, it's only fair for them to take all the credit.

The same goes for infrastructure.

Except in this case GWR are blaming the DfT for rolling stock issues. For the last few years it has been the case that any criticism regarding quality or quantity of rolling stock has been met with a "we are getting new trains in a few years but for now our hands are tied and we can't do anything about it because it is government / DfT controlled" kind of response.

So GWR have to choose one of two stances. Either they take credit for the investment being made and "owning" the railway and so they also accept the criticism when things go wrong. Or they distance themselves from the rolling stock / infrastructure issues and so also distance themselves from the investment being made etc. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

(note - the investment issues is the biggest issue I have, no GWR, you are NOT investing billions into the network, NR / the government / the taxpayer are. The "ownership" thing doesn't really bother me as much)

 

[HowardGWR]

So GWR have to choose one of two stances. Either they take credit for the investment being made and "owning" the railway and so they also accept the criticism when things go wrong. Or they distance themselves from the rolling stock / infrastructure issues and so also distance themselves from the investment being made etc. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

I think that they demonstrably can do what they like, as long as they can get away with it. They would have got away with their advert had not people complained. More relevantly, they appear to have DfT over a barrel and keep getting contract extensions.

 

[Busaholic]

The ad was untruthful in every aspect imo. Even if it had been found by the ASA to NOT have implied public ownership then it was still misleading because FirstGroup is not a company based in the region, regardless of where FirstGreatWestern claims to be based. Suppose the Russian state railways had tendered for the franchise and got it, then had set up a subsidiary company based in, say, Swindon to manage it, then had come up with this sort of poster claiming some form of 'local' ownership, there would have been a public outcry. It is just as bogus for FGW to claim any local proprietorship.

I've run a business in deepest Cornwall for 28 years, but even I wouldn't claim 'local' ownership of it, despite living there all that time too.