But the 810s lease isn’t with Eversholt. And as a commercial organisation Eversholt can choose to lease their asset to whoever they choose. It also puts the potential ScotRail lease at risk if it goes beyond this year.
All of which would be available in such a coach.
There was a lot of discussion around wheelchair access for bridges over Lincoln high street that would have not been wheelchair accessible, however a case was argued that because the level crossing was open most of the time, the bridge did not need to be wheelchair accessible. Eventually a bridge design with lifts was found to be possible - but I think it's worth noting that things are not as black and white as you seem to often believe.
What prior occasions has a short-term emergency relief service using mixed compliant and non-compliant stock been suggested.
Of course the units going to LUMO will transfer as agreed in the relevant contracts. The opportunity for an extension with Eversholt would be for the 222s not going to FG/Lumo.
You may well have identified the issue here, in that the DfT possibly hasn't authorised such a sub-lease from FG to EMR.
The 180s belong in the shredder, and nowhere else.
Which law exactly would Eversholt be breaking?
Pursuing a pragmatic agreement that saves the timetable is a lot more noble than doing nothing. It would be sensible damage limitation, and looking weak now (which I don’t really agree with that assertion anyway) would be better than looking totally incompetent in a few months time. No leader or management with any sense would want such a debacle on their hands, just at the time when GBR will be thinking about who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ for future positions- of which there could be fewer available.
The same happened when maintenance of 1996TS passed from Alstom to AP-JNP Ltd (TLL) under TfL.
Yes, however breaches of contract are typically civil matters, that do not often result in criminal proceedings. It's important to remember that we're not just in the realm of companies and contracts, we are also dealing with politics and public opinion.
Again, legal damages, vs the economic impacts across half the country. That's before we consider that the legitimate interests of the regions may present a suitable defence.
I read what you said, but as I said, the majority of contract law issues do not result in criminal proceedings, and I am sure that in this case there are ways to minimise such a risk.
I agree that politicians should be accountable to the laws, but our lawmakers have plenty of options at their hands.
They almost certainly are. The 5 units come off lease at the same time, but will be stored while they all pass through Widnes for refurbishment. FG is likely to be willing to sublease the units for a few months till they pass through Widnes.
Public opinion doesn't affect Eversholt. They are business-to-business and their customers won't be put off by Eversholt following a contract.
And what civil servant is going to sign off on breaking the law, and facing potential prosecution, for the sake of 5 trains?
Either way, it's unlikely to be a 15 year lease.
TAAs are decided by the ORR, not the DfT. And the DfT/its TOCs object to most of them anyway.
Given the drive to nationalise the railway, if I were the Eversholt I would be very nervous about crossing the government.
Again, you are working on the assumption that this is breaking the law, a position that is much weaker and more open to interpretation than some posters make it seem - especially when we consider the options available to the government that are not available to a private company.
The lease is signed, refurbishment and maintenance deal is signed… FG are not going to completely back out of it.
worst case Eversholt get paid nicely for their assets.
Eversholt have a contract to provide trains to FG/Lumo. Not providing them is a breach of contract and the government encouraging a breach of contract is absolutely illegal.
Sorry but why exactly are we having 3tph to Derby?
I never said that there would be any assets being seized - that's a fabrication of your own making.
If it comes to it, the government could pass primary legislation requiring the transfer of all rolling stock to be approved by the Department for Transport, or use the CCA to forbid the transfer of trains away from EMR. This bizzare view that somehow contract law between two private companies gives the government no ability to resolve an issue around critical national infrastructure is quite frankly farcical.
Yes, contracts get varied all the time, it's a normal part of business that people don't go to prison for.
You said that ROSCOs should be fearful of the DfT due to renationalisation, I’ve tried to explain that if they were nationalised they’d be paid for their assets and why.
It’s five trainsets. The government isn’t going to pull out legislation.
Apologies I wasn’t 100% clear on this.
You haven't answered my question on where such a coach would come from. Furthermore, items such as PIS are required throughout the train - people with hearing impairment aren't all going to sit in one coach. And the absolute killer is around droplight windows and outside handles. The ORR is simply never going to agree to that on service trains - the GWR sleeper continues with suitable mitigations around window blockers and revised pick up/set down only calling patterns.
Oh there's been plenty of suggestions on here. None of which have happened.
I agree and Lumo would make money on a sublease in return for a delayed start of their open access service. It's getting very escalated to be talking about criminality and contract law! And if EMR finds 5 spare units from somewhere, no problem in the first place.
But settlements can always be reached between companies and governments out of court if necessary, but I highly doubt anything like this happens.
Good question actually, will edit it now as I don't honestly have a clue why I put that
I personally think this reduces them service to London St Pancras too far.
