First Great Western scrutinised by Reading public
The First Great Western Scrutiny Meeting was held in Reading’s elegant Old Town Hall last night. I attended with a few scraps of paper and biro (I haven’t reached the Twitter stage yet), expecting some interesting exchanges. I wasn’t disappointed. It was an informative and useful session, and I hope that it won’t be the last.
It was brave of Andrew Haines, Chief Operating Officer at First Great Western, to agree to face questions from Councillors and the public. I thought he did rather well, even coming across as quite likeable.
Having said that, there were dollops of unnecessary management speak here and there - especially in the PowerPoint presentation given at the beginning. The words “A burning platform for change” were highlighted in an early slide, for example, along with a “vision” consisting of the following fairly generic objectives:
- A genuine passion for improvement
- Putting customers first [a chap in front of me shook his head as these words were read out]
- Real engagement
- Part of the solution, not part of the problem
In the same presentation, Andrew revealed that there are “some signs of improvement”, with FGW now off the bottom in the table of worst operators (instead ranked 16th), explained that FGW was investing in customer information systems and unveiled a timeline of important milestones such as the “long overdue” Reading Station project (scheduled for completion in 2015). Even the Olympics were included (2012).
The question and answer session followed. Here are some of the highlights (and please step in if I made a mistake here):
- There were questions put to the panel about value for money. It was explained to the audience that the cost per track mile (38p, according to a member of the audience) was relatively higher because the charge imposed by Network Rail to use the line to Paddington (the so-called Track Access Charge) was higher (and beyond FGW’s control, as are other infrastructural issues)
- Andrew was asked about his earnings and bonuses by a season ticket holder paying more than 3.5k per year on rail travel. He declined to reveal these (somewhat fairly, I thought)
- An audience member asked Andrew, somewhat bluntly, “who should we take our immediate anger on?” Andrew suggested picking up the phone. He proceeded to give out his email address, as requested (again bluntly) - but not his phone number
- A salesperson audience member, who travels all over the UK, raised the issue of passengers standing in the middle of the carriage, adding that customers are not treated with respect. She added that some of her journeys into Paddington take an hour in the morning. Andrew responded by saying that he couldn’t fix capacity alone and that a hard look will be taken at engagement and reliability
- A question was asked about the toilets on board FGW trains
- Andrew agreed to return in 6 months time for a similar meeting, if invited
I left the meeting feeling grateful that it had taken place (definitely a step in the right direction) but at the same time doubtful that we will see tangible improvements any time soon. For this is what we (customers) want, I believe.
The situation is indeed complicated, as someone concluded at the end of the meeting, but I believe that some progress can be made by making quick, visible improvements such as drivers/train managers providing regular updates/alerts to passengers, fixing tannoys, even doing more in the area of online communications (a Twitter feed, for example, would be useful, in my opinion). Low-hanging fruit is the management speak, I think, for it.
I should add that I was delighted to meet Councillor Daisy Benson and Mr muckspReading (both asked pertinent questions in the meeting).
Matt Brady on July 4th 2008 in Transport
