| Archived Save the Train forum articles - 2005 to 2010. See below
Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/2945 Written by Lee on Friday, 12th January 2007 Commuters buoyed by a promise of extra London-bound train services from Maidenhead and Twyford have branded the planned timetable changes misleading and inadequate (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/timetable_tweak_just_spin.html#more Meanwhile , a meeting between MPs and First Great Western has failed to resolve a bitter dispute over train services in Oxfordshire and Berkshire (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/meeting_fails_to_end_rail_disp.html No deal was agreed at the summit and there is now a call for the company to face penalty fines over its service. "I don't think First Great Western have really taken on board the level of unhappiness out there." - MP Richard Benyon Ed Vaizey , Conservative MP for Wantage and Didcot said the meeting had been "a complete waste of time". Martin Salter , MP for Reading West , claimed people were leaving the railways in droves because of "chronic overcrowding". "We can't hold out any realistic prospect of improvement for our constituents until April or May at the earliest." Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/2978 Written by Lee on Saturday, 13th January 2007 Here is a related article (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/rival_mps_climb_aboard_plan_to.html#more Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/2998 Written by Nick Field on Saturday, 13th January 2007 A BBC news article on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/6253949.stm I also heard Andrew Griffiths again last night this time on BBC Radio Berkshire. I missed some of it but managed to catch the end and heard him saying that all franchise bidders would have been subject to the same rolling stock restrictions. Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3003 Written by Steve35 on Sunday, 14th January 2007 [quote author=Nick Field link=topic=1051.msg2998#msg2998 date=1168724271] I also heard Andrew Griffiths again last night this time on BBC Radio Berkshire. I missed some of it but managed to catch the end and heard him saying that all franchise bidders would have been subject to the same rolling stock restrictions. [/quote] Sounds about right (but see below). The DfT underwrites the leases between the train operator (FGW in this case) and the Rolling Stock Leasing Company that owns the trains. If the DfT won't underwrite a lease for a unit then FGW (or any other train operator for that matter) can't lease the unit. End of story. So the DfT effectively determines how many units FGW can use to run the timetable. Here's a quote from an insider "The DfT will say publicly that FGW can run extra services if they are commercially viable. FGW can specify what is deemed commercially viable, however the DfT can specify what *it* deems commercially viable when underwriting the lease agreements. It can therefore covertly limit services by refusing to act as a guarantor to the extra stock leases. No lease company will sign an agreement without such a guarantee." So even if FGW wants to run extra services and believes them to be commercially viable the DfT can disagree and refuse to underwrite the lease. Another point: Five of the HST's that provide the Intercity services to Paddington are owned outright by First rather than being leased. First bought them off a leasing company a couple of years ago when there were many HST's in store after being replaced by Virgin Voyagers on Cross-Country services. It looked at that time as if there wasn't any demand for the stored HST's and they might have to be scrapped so the leasing company decided to sell them instead. So if First lost the FGW franchise they could well take these 5 HST's with them to use on one of their other franchises, leaving the new operator of the Great Western franchise with a problem - as these days there are no spare HST's that they could lease. So let's just think things through. Suppose the current public outrage causes the DfT to strip FGW of the franchise. FGW might decide to sell the HST's to the replacement operator or it might take the HST's with it. If it chose the latter option the new operator would be 5 trains short. Even if 5 replacement HST-size trains could be found from somewhere they would still need leasing. This would be an extra cost for the new operator that FGW didn't have. If the DfT played tough and said "no more money is available" you might end up with extra service cuts in the Wessex part of the business to pay for leasing the 5 replacement trains. Alternatively there might just have to be cutbacks on the Paddington services. So anyone who wants FGW to lose the franchise should think carefully about the possible consequences. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. (And more). Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3012 Written by Lee on Sunday, 14th January 2007 There is a danger that if FGW are stripped of their franchise , then the DfT could step in to "impose order" , with all the unwelcome consequences that could bring. I do think that now would be a good time for a FGW "gesture of faith / commitment" though..... Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3023 Written by tonya on Sunday, 14th January 2007 Steve, what you seem to be saying is better the devil you know.......I am not sure I agree with this. The devil we know is one where we no longer have a train service we can rely on at all. It's gone far beyond just overcrowded trains. They may arrive or not, and you may be able to get on them or not. Hence the commuter anger and support for MTLS and the forthcoming fare strike. We understand that government policy is at the heart of all this, however it is FGW who signed up to the franchise and to whom we pay our fares. If the franchise is taken away from FGW, presumably it would be in the DFT's interests to upgrade the minimum service specifications or they would likely have the same uproar again if the subsequent service provider failed in the same way for the same reasons. By upping the minimum specifications allowing the sunsequent franchisee to succeed the govt could then blame FGW rather than themselves for the fgw franchise failure. Another failure would make it increasinglky hard for the dft to say it's nothing to do with them. Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3031 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Monday, 15th January 2007 From Steve35 [quote]So even if FGW wants to run extra services and believes them to be commercially viable the DfT can disagree and refuse to underwrite the lease.[/quote] I agree with you at this point. I'm interested to know, though, whether the biders had more say in the number of trains they would have needed at the tending stage - with company "x" saying 60, company "y" 62 and company "z" 70 - encouraing a dutch auction. Taking that scenario, you would have First as being, yes, very much under the Government's thumb but there, to a very great extent, at their own making. Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3050 Written by Lee on Monday, 15th January 2007 [quote author=tonya link=topic=1051.msg3023#msg3023 date=1168799646]Steve, what you seem to be saying is better the devil you know.......I am not sure I agree with this. The devil we know is one where we no longer have a train service we can rely on at all. It's gone far beyond just overcrowded trains. They may arrive or not, and you may be able to get on them or not. Hence the commuter anger and support for MTLS and the forthcoming fare strike. We understand that government policy is at the heart of all this, however it is FGW who signed up to the franchise and to whom we pay our fares. If the franchise is taken away from FGW, presumably it would be in the DFT's interests to upgrade the minimum service specifications or they would likely have the same uproar again if the subsequent service provider failed in the same way for the same reasons. By upping the minimum specifications allowing the sunsequent franchisee to succeed the govt could then blame FGW rather than themselves for the fgw franchise failure. Another failure would make it increasinglky hard for the dft to say it's nothing to do with them.[/quote] It really depends on how serious both the DfT and FGW are about their future commitment to rail services in our area. Three things give me cause for doubt regarding this : 1) The DfT & First have authorised millions to be spent on parallel "showcase" bus routes on both the Bath - Bristol and Yate - Weston - super - Mare corridors (links below.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4747277.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5157322.stm 2) Here is a link to a diagram showing journey times between Wiltshire towns and Bath by train and by bus. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=588.msg1757#msg1757 Source quote : "I used this in the Wiltshire Structure Plan Examination in Public in 2004 or 5. The panel came out against government office (GOSW) who tried recommended to those gathered the idea of converting local rail to bus" 3) What is referrred to below was not exactly the "gesture of faith / commitment" I was after from FGW. [quote author=Graham Ellis link=topic=875.msg3030#msg3030 date=1168842553] To - Customer services ... The 06:44 from Melksham to Westbury is cancelled yet again this morning. I also understand that you are adding extra sets to trains such as the 06:47 Frome to Bristol. 1. Are you robbing Peter to pay Paul - i.e. withdrawing the train completely from the Swindon line so that you can make the journey more comfortable for passengers on other services? 2. At what point do you expect to be able to offer a reliable service on the Westbury to Swindon route? End quote No, I do NOT bedrudge extra stock on trains such as the one up from Frome, but I don't thinks it's acceptable for Melksham to loose its servcei to strengthen others. Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3052 Written by Steve35 on Monday, 15th January 2007 [quote author=Graham Ellis link=topic=1051.msg3031#msg3031 date=1168844007] From Steve35 [quote]So even if FGW wants to run extra services and believes them to be commercially viable the DfT can disagree and refuse to underwrite the lease.[/quote] I agree with you at this point. I'm interested to know, though, whether the biders had more say in the number of trains they would have needed at the tending stage - with company "x" saying 60, company "y" 62 and company "z" 70 - encouraing a dutch auction. Taking that scenario, you would have First as being, yes, very much under the Government's thumb but there, to a very great extent, at their own making. Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3058 Written by Steve35 on Monday, 15th January 2007 [quote author=tonya link=topic=1051.msg3023#msg3023 date=1168799646] Steve, what you seem to be saying is better the devil you know.......I am not sure I agree with this. The devil we know is one where we no longer have a train service we can rely on at all. It's gone far beyond just overcrowded trains. They may arrive or not, and you may be able to get on them or not. Hence the commuter anger and support for MTLS and the forthcoming fare strike. We understand that government policy is at the heart of all this, however it is FGW who signed up to the franchise and to whom we pay our fares. If the franchise is taken away from FGW, presumably it would be in the DFT's interests to upgrade the minimum service specifications or they would likely have the same uproar again if the subsequent service provider failed in the same way for the same reasons. By upping the minimum specifications allowing the sunsequent franchisee to succeed the govt could then blame FGW rather than themselves for the fgw franchise failure. Another failure would make it increasinglky hard for the dft to say it's nothing to do with them. [/quote] Yes, you make a good point. What I was trying to make everyone aware of is that FGW actually own 5 of the HST trains and could take them with them if they lost the franchise. Which would leave the new operator with the problem of where to get 5 replacement trains from. There aren't any spare HST's at the moment. Re: Thames Valley Timetable Tweak - 1051/3059 Written by Lee on Monday, 15th January 2007 This is indeed the case. For a good overview of First Great Western , check out this Wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Western "First Great Western use their large fleet of 43 HST sets to operate most long distance services from Paddington to destinations such as Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Cheltenham, Plymouth and Penzance. Not all of the fleet is leased, with some sets being bought outright by First." link to index of articles |
|||
Save the Train was the campaign to bring an approriate train service back to and through Melksham. Most big contributors are still around writing at the Coffee shop forum where new members are very welcome. The train has been saved - sort of - we have stepped back up from an unusable service to a poorish one but it's doing very well. We did that through setting up the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership. That fulfilled its early objectives; it has been taken over by local and regional government types who are now doing medium and long term work. The team from this forun can also be found at the Melksham Rail User Group (which was the Melksham Rail Development Group at the time these articles were written and we had no users. We mustn't loose sight, though, that the train service remains poor and needs our community support in marketing and campaigning to keep it going in a positive direction ... and all the more so when we're expecting to find a different normallity once we get out of the Coronavirus Pandemic and head for zero carbon via the climate crisis. Yes, it's saved ... it's now a key community facility ... the need for enhancement and the strong and near-universal local support remain, and the rail industry and goverment remain slow to move and provide the enhancements even to level us up with other towns. Please support the Melksham Rail User Group - now very much in partnership rather than protest with the rail industry and local government, including GWR, TransWilts and unitary and town councils. And please use the trains and buses, and cycle and walk when you can. -- Graham Ellis, (webmaster), February 2021 | |||
|
|||
Further Information:
Home
Current Summary
Daily update
User forum
Consultation
Service now
Service future
Future Analysis
Recent Statistics
Recent letters
Letter to DfT
Save the train
Presentation
Support us
Other Maps
Station facilities
Station approach
Pictures
Trains diverted
History
About Melksham
Site Map
About this site