E-Mail to the ROSCO's and Their Responses

On 20th July, I e-mailed the three Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCO's) - Angel Trains, Porterbrook and Eversholt Rail about the rolling stock they lease to Abellio Greater Anglia (AGA). I was curious about the agreements the ROSCO's have with TOC's, AGA specifically, about the maintenance and cleaning of the trains and who was responsible. So far I have only got responses from Eversholt Rail, who replied on 29th July, and Angel Trains, who replied this morning.

Eversholt Rail were rather dismissive of my request for information. Refusing, on two occasions in short and sweet e-mails, to give me information because of "confidential commercial arrangements". Wendy Filer was the person who contacted me.

Angel Trains were on the other hand a little bit more open with me. I received a fairly long winded e-mail from Susan Holliday, who apparently is one of their contract managers, AGA's Class 360's come under her portfolio. Having read her e-mail, I would say some of her response was generic, but some also a direct reply to the e-mail I had sent them.

The e-mail I sent to them was as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you today based on the understanding that as one of the UK's ROSCO's you own a selection of trains operated by Abellio Greater Anglia. I understand that the Classes of trains that you own that Abellio Greater Anglia uses include: 51 x Class 317, 21 x Class 360 and 30 x Class 379.

While I realise that Angel Trains retains ownership of the aforementioned trains, I wish to know the maintenance arrangements you have with Abellio Greater Anglia, IE, who is responsible for maintaining the trains, external and internal cleaning of the trains, etc. It strikes me that most of the trains used by Abellio Greater Anglia aren't subject to adequate maintenance or cleaning, so they end up developing faults and are in a generally dirty condition. In saying that, I am not directly pointing the finger of blame at Angel Trains, as it seems to be a common theme with trains used by Abellio Greater Anglia, including trains owned by the other two ROSCO's.

I generally don't have experience with the Class 317 or Class 379 trains, however I do frequently travel on the Class 360 trains, which given that they are only 11 or 12 years old, they seem to be in very poor condition internally. A lot of the seats are threadbare, the fabric on some is even torn and the carpets are often filthy. One train, 360116, there has been a large orange and brown stain on the floor of carriage 74566 for at least 5 months and has been reported to Abellio Greater Anglia on at least 3 occasions in that time. Other carpets on other trains are filthy too.

Based on this, I would like to know the general lease terms, particularly to do with the issues pointed out in this e-mail. If possible, I would like to know the required service and cleaning intervals for the trains your company owns that Abellio Greater Anglia use.

If you could get back to me with the information I ask for, I would be most grateful.

Kind regards,

Daniel Collins

And the response:

Dear Mr Collins, 

Many Thanks for your e-mail.   

Firstly, may I introduce myself properly, my name is Susan Holliday and I’m a Contract Manager employed by Angel, the Class 360 Fleet comes under my portfolio.  And you are absolutely correct, Angel Trains do own the Class 360 Fleet currently in operation with Abellio Greater Anglia.   In answer to your query, specifically relating to the 360 Fleet, I can confirm that we contract the Maintenance out to a 3^rd party, as we do with many other fleets.  The Class 360 has an excellent reliability record, with performance in service (in terms of delay minutes seen by the travelling public) regularly exceeding targets.     

Ref the issues you raise with regards to the cleaning, the Trains are regularly cleaned to a good standard, however they are operated on busy commuter routes and so I suspect you have been travelling at times which fall in-between the heavy cleans.  There are occasionally carpet stains which are more difficult to remove and need a little more time in the depot for staff to fully remove, sometimes this can take a few weeks to plan in around the scheduled maintenance (to avoid disrupting the service), however 5 months for the stain you mention on 74566 is not acceptable and I will raise with our contractor to ensure it is addressed at the next possible opportunity.   

Torn seats are exchanged during maintenance exams at the earliest opportunity, but are usually a result of passenger vandalism which we do our best to keep on top of.  The threadbare seats are exchanged as required, however in order to keep the costs to a minimum for the industry and ultimately for the travelling public, we work to an inspection regime to maximise on the seat life.  The seats are exchanged if they do not meet the agreed criteria on thread wear, and any torn seats are exchanged.  Following your feedback, I will review this regime with our supplier and the Train Operating Company and ensure we are focussed as a team, thank you for bringing it to my attention.   

It is worth noting that Railway vehicles go through cycles of scheduled maintenance and interior refreshes.  The 360s are approaching the end of this cycle and so will not be in the same condition as a newly refurbished Fleet.   

Many Thanks for your feedback and Very Best Regards   

Susan Holliday

Make of this e-mail as you will, but to suggest that damage to seats and interiors are due to "passenger vandalism" is A) premature without knowing that was definitely the case, and B) shamefully rude and unacceptable without knowing the facts. And I like the quote about cleaning standards, "trains are regularly cleaned to a good standard". By what measure would Ms Holliday consider the 360's interiors to be cleaned to a good standard? Has she seen my pictures, which are among many others showing the cleaning standards are far below par and not good by any stretch of anybody's imagination.

I suppose I should consider myself lucky that Susan Holliday replied at all with an e-mail that was carefully thought out. I am still waiting Porterbrook's response and with Eversholt's brief and pointless response, they may as well have not bothered.