First will not take over West Coast from December

[yorksrob]

Every government expected the rail network to be financially efficient - having said that I can never understand why those on the left want organisations to be financially inefficient - most of the cuts to the rail network happened whilst it was nationalised and expansion projects didn't happen.

Factually incorrect. Quite a few expansion projects did happen during nationalisation - particularly from the 1980's onwards.

 

[Simon11]

VT evening services out of New Street can be incredibly busy (were amongst the first to get allocated an 11-car 390) but after Coventry are whisper quiet. The big flow is to Coventry not London. Put a service reduction in and you've got problems.

I have to disagree with this, having analysed virgins through lennon, the top flow from birmingham is to london - both revenue and journeys.
Secondly, I would expect that they would be more keen to introduce the long cars on the glasgow and liverpool routes due to the limited hourly service. Then manchester over birmingham services.

 

[Realfish]

Anyone who has ever done such work will know that there must be numerous copies of this file around. It beggars belief that it could have been lost. Given how embarassing losing the file is, then what it contained must have been really bad.

Absolutely. It should also be possible to audit the (deleted) e-mail trails.


Also from the Guardian, this report of a grovelling apology from the DfT's PS;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/11/transport-west-coast-mainline

 

[tbtc]

The fare reductions (VT only) were to allow VT to get a greater share of the pie. LM operates less seats than CT did to Coventry and trains are not significantly busier - VT are carrying the passengers instead. VT evening services out of New Street can be incredibly busy (were amongst the first to get allocated an 11-car 390) but after Coventry are whisper quiet. The big flow is to Coventry not London. Put a service reduction in and you've got problems

So you are saying that having one TOC running all London - Coventry - Birmingham services would be a bad thing because it would reduce competition (that sacred Tory god), but this "competition" just swaps existing passengers between the two franchises? So the railway carries the same number of passengers, just at a significant discount? A great use of resources in a heavily subsidised railway.

Who was talking about a service reduction between Birmingham and Coventry?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absolutely. It should also be possible to audit the (deleted) e-mail trails

News International remembered how to, eventually

 

[A0]

Factually incorrect. Quite a few expansion projects did happen during nationalisation - particularly from the 1980's onwards.

Examples?

Apart from Thameslink - and that was only a very small extension albeit one which gave a significant benefits.

And not counting airport links (e.g. Stansted) because they were usually funded by BAA / the airport operator.

There were certainly infrastructure improvements (electrification, route modernisations) but very little that actually expanded the network (as distinct to increase capacity on the existing network).

 

[Realfish]

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk...coast-mainline-train-services-99623-32008124/

Interesting...

If this is true, Dft., ORR and others need to find a way to commence the task of facilitating some of the service improvements that were promised by bidders.

It seems unreasonable to wait 18 months before such enhancements can even be reconsidered (and baby Pendelinos or 6 car alternatives won't be less expensive in 2014)

 

[yorksrob]

Examples?

Apart from Thameslink - and that was only a very small extension albeit one which gave a significant benefits.

And not counting airport links (e.g. Stansted) because they were usually funded by BAA / the airport operator.

There were certainly infrastructure improvements (electrification, route modernisations) but very little that actually expanded the network (as distinct to increase capacity on the existing network).

Why not count Airport links ? Do you think the railway funds expansion projects now entirely of itself ? (Ok, I'll give you Chiltern) but really a lot of the expansion now is down to Government funding.

To answer your question:

Birmingham Snow Hill, Oxford - Bicester, The Robin Hood line, Liverpool - Hunts Cross, Wakefield - Pontefract (I'm sure there are more but I can't think of them right now).

 

[Philip Elliott]

So you are saying that having one TOC running all London - Coventry - Birmingham services would be a bad thing because it would reduce competition (that sacred Tory god), but this "competition" just swaps existing passengers between the two franchises? So the railway carries the same number of passengers, just at a significant discount? A great use of resources in a heavily subsidised railway.

The discount has swapped passengers between operators but has also encouraged passengers aswell. You do realise that without the discounting, the lower passenger numbers that would have resulted would seriously undermine the case for HS2?

I have to disagree with this, having analysed virgins through lennon, the top flow from birmingham is to london - both revenue and journeys.

I think you missed the word 'evening'. The high Birmingham - London flow is in the morning.

 

[jon0844]

I assume you are referring to the poster above me. Let me point you to the "Quote" button...

Yeah, sorry about that. I won't apologise to anyone that couldn't see my obvious joke though.

(I didn't think I needed a smiley for it either as it was so clearly tongue in cheek)

 

[A0]

Which is exactly why I don't want the railways re-nationalised. Good luck finding anything i've said that supports nationalisation because you won't find any but hey why not just assume / make up someone's views so you can make sniggering remarks to:roll: (tbtc has a long posting record of supporting cuts and opposing expansion). Your own postings suggests you are a Tory but I'll leave it to you to confirm/deny if you wish.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what your solution is then? Rather than just dismissing the positions others hold.

Childish prattle - I have said nothing of the sort. I previously mentioned routes for re-opening that I believe to be of strategic importance if we want a truly usable national railway network / quality public transport system. I fully support many projects such as Tavistock, Uckfield-lewes, Portishead which have no use to me. East-West Rail is now to be a fully electrified main line - the government has clearly seen the need for improving east-west links.

You mean like Northampton - Wellingborough, Peterborough - Rugby ? Both of which you've suggested on another thread, this before we've even got Oxford - Cambridge back in place and can see whether that attracts the claimed traffic volumes?

And you've made your opposition to investment in the road network very clear on other threads as well, despite the fact that may actually yield far better returns than highly expensive reinstatements.

Cov - Bhm
CDR - £4.90 (Any Permitted)
CDR - £3.40 (VT Only)

MKC-Eus
CDR - £21.50 (Any Permitted)
CDR - £14.50 (VT Only)
CDR - £14.50 (LM only)

Centro subsidise many routes but competition has resulted in even lower fares.

Well, the Cov-Bhm one is definately low due to Centro's intervention - you can see a similar effect if you look at a Leeds - Bradford journey where WYPTA support things which has a fare of £4.30.

Competition doesn't always pan out that way though - look at Bedford - London, despite there being EMT & FCC, there's still the same walk-up fare of £20.10 - so there's clearly other factors at play with MK.

 

[tbtc]

The discount has swapped passengers between operators but has also encouraged passengers aswell. You do realise that without the discounting, the lower passenger numbers that would have resulted would seriously undermine the case for HS2?

Northampton has seen passenger numbers rise without the need for two TOCs to compete. How come Coventry need these kind of discounts to justify its London service?

The reality is that even if you had one TOC running all services on the Birmingham - Coventry - London corridor you'd see some discounted tickets (just like on any major corridor).

So, go go back to my previous proposal:

• One TOC on all WCML services from Euston to Northampton/ Trent Valley/ Birmingham and the local EMU services in the West MIdlands
• One TOC on the London - Holyhead/ Manchester/ Liverpool/ Glasgow services with all the English FNW services
• Chiltern taking the Snow Hill services (since that'd tie up with their DMU services on that corridor)

That way you have franchises that balance the profitable intercity services with the unprofitable local ones, thus avoiding the potential for a franchise to have huge premiums (which the company might walk away from - since this is one big criticism of the WCML bids).

 

[Philip Elliott]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what your solution is then? Rather than just dismissing the positions others hold.

Solution to what?

You mean like Northampton - Wellingborough, Peterborough - Rugby ? Both of which you've suggested on another thread, this before we've even got Oxford - Cambridge back in place and can see whether that attracts the claimed traffic volumes?

I firmly believe Northampton - Wellingborough would be a very useful and well patronised line. If you disagree - fine, but don't make up some silly assertation that I want it re-opened for my personal benefit - I would have very little use for the line.

Well, the Cov-Bhm one is definately low due to Centro's intervention - you can see a similar effect if you look at a Leeds - Bradford journey where WYPTA support things which has a fare of £4.30

But the point is there is an even lower "VT only" option brought about by competition.

 

[Zoe]

The reality is that even if you had one TOC running all services on the Birmingham - Coventry - London corridor you'd see some discounted tickets (just like on any major corridor).

As long as you book in advance. Over on the East Coast where both East Coast and First Capital Connect serve Peterborough, the cost of a walk-up day trip to London (avoiding peak times) is £18 with First Capital Connect or £29 70 with East Coast. Compared with Swindon this is quite cheap as no day return fares are available and the cheapest walk-up return is £41. Coventry like Swindon is outside the former Network SouthEast area and so walk-up fares tend to bit more expensive. I could be argeud though that you should just book in advance on these routes though if you want a cheap fare.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Northampton has seen passenger numbers rise without the need for two TOCs to compete. How come Coventry need these kind of discounts to justify its London service?

The reality is that even if you had one TOC running all services on the Birmingham - Coventry - London corridor you'd see some discounted tickets (just like on any major corridor).

So, go go back to my previous proposal:

• One TOC on all WCML services from Euston to Northampton/ Trent Valley/ Birmingham and the local EMU services in the West MIdlands
• One TOC on the London - Holyhead/ Manchester/ Liverpool/ Glasgow services with all the English FNW services
• Chiltern taking the Snow Hill services (since that'd tie up with their DMU services on that corridor)

That way you have franchises that balance the profitable intercity services with the unprofitable local ones, thus avoiding the potential for a franchise to have huge premiums (which the company might walk away from - since this is one big criticism of the WCML bids).

Would we have 3tph Brum to London by 350s if we had 'one TOC'? NO
Would we have the supersaver Brum to London? NO

 

[tbtc]

Would we have 3tph Brum to London by 350s if we had 'one TOC'? NO
Would we have the supersaver Brum to London? NO

So you are saying that the LM frequency between Birmingham and London is only justified by cheap ticketing and couldn't stand on it's own based on normal prices?

There'd still be a regular local service from Birmingham to Coventry/ Rugby and a regular local service from Northampton to London, so the marginal cost of LM running three/ hour as a through service isn't that high.

Would there be cheap tickets between Birmingham and London? Given that there's fast competition from Chiltern (much faster than LM), I suspect yes there would be competition.

Again though, you're just knocking things without making any proposals of your own (other than local Northamptonshire services)

 

[Philip Elliott]

And you've made your opposition to investment in the road network very clear on other threads as well, despite the fact that may actually yield far better returns than highly expensive reinstatements.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Does investment in (trunk) roads give people to choice to drive or not? No. I am not against bypasses or any scheme that would help increase safety on the roads. I am against spending on roads at the expense of public transport. The point I made before was that Leicestershire has some of the best roads in the country but some of the worst public transport. The money spent hasn't been aimed at capacity or speed but just regularly replacing the road surface on very quiet country lanes when it just isn't required. Warwickshire CC on the other end seemingly don't spend on money on transport. The roads here in Nuneaton are atrocious.

 

[3141]

Absolutely. It should also be possible to audit the (deleted) e-mail trails.

Have you considered the possibility that the people evaluating the bids were(1) under-resourced, and (2) unable to understand fully what they were dealing with?

Yes, it would be pretty bad, but in Modern Railways Roger Ford said he hadn't yet been able to grasp the GDP-related mechanism and quoted someone senior in First who admitted that he didn't understand it and that some "very clever people" had needed to run it several times.

It seems possible that the DfT have made their franchise frameworks so complicated that they are not only difficult for the TOCs to understand fully, but also difficult for the DfT to evaluate. Maybe the people doing the work were becoming desparate. If they knew from emails going round the department that there was pressure from the Treasury to accept the largest bid, and that some senior staff might be pleased if Virgin didn't win, it's conceivable that they would come up with the answer they knew would be welcomed.

You do from time to time hear of people who hoard or destroy documents because they can't cope with them.

It can be fun to contemplate conspiracy theories but sometimes the cock-up theory is actually the truth.

Do all feel free to shoot these ideas down (as if I needed to say that!).

 

[A0]

Why not count Airport links ? Do you think the railway funds expansion projects now entirely of itself ? (Ok, I'll give you Chiltern) but really a lot of the expansion now is down to Government funding.

No, but they tend to be private initiatives, rather than BR (as was) actively seeking to develop its network.

To answer your question:

Birmingham Snow Hill, Oxford - Bicester, The Robin Hood line, Liverpool - Hunts Cross, Wakefield - Pontefract (I'm sure there are more but I can't think of them right now).

Of which most (if not all) were actually funded by the local authorities / PTAs. What I don't ever recall is BR actually looking at developing its network because it had identified a gap in the market. If anything BR closed and uplifted far more route miles in the 70s and 80s than has been reinstated in the 90s.

 

[Eagle]

What I don't ever recall is BR actually looking at developing its network because it had identified a gap in the market.

Coventry to Leamington and to Nuneaton are two such examples (admittedly both using open freight lines).

 

[Zoe]

Coventry to Leamington and to Nuneaton are two such examples (admittedly both using open freight lines).

Were there ever any plans to improve links between Coventry and Leicester? Cosidering the size of the two cities and the distance between them, it's surprising that there are no direct rail services between then. I know the infrastructure largely prevents running a regular direct service but was there ever a plan to improve this?

 

[tbtc]

Were there ever any plans to improve links between Coventry and Leicester? Cosidering the size of the two cities and the distance between them, it's surprising that there are no direct rail services between then. I know the infrastructure largely prevents running a regular direct service but was there ever a plan to improve this?

There was an hourly Central Trains service (to Nottingham IIRC) a few years ago

 

[yorksrob]

No, but they tend to be private initiatives, rather than BR (as was) actively seeking to develop its network.



Of which most (if not all) were actually funded by the local authorities / PTAs. What I don't ever recall is BR actually looking at developing its network because it had identified a gap in the market. If anything BR closed and uplifted far more route miles in the 70s and 80s than has been reinstated in the 90s.

You'll find that most expansions of the network are funded from a variety of sources. With the exception of Chiltern, I can't think of a route reopening/extension recently that hasn't had a substantial input of public funding. One of the reasons why our Celtic neighbours have got route expansions is because their devolved Governments are prepared to pay for them (what I Wouldn't give for a similar trickle of re-openings in England nowadays !).

Whilst it's true that BR did close more route miles during the 70's and early eighties than it re-opened later on, you forget that it was also subject to Government policy and longer term socio-economic trends, most noteably the rise of cheap motoring.

If we're talking about market expansion, there were also plenty of station openings on existing lines during the period.

 

[Eagle]

There was an hourly Central Trains service (to Nottingham IIRC) a few years ago

And the 2004 remodelling of Nuneaton made it impossible, as the Birmingham–Leicester is now operationally separate from the WCML, save some crossovers that are in the wrong place to be of any use for Coventry line trains.

(The CT service often ran to Skegness or Lincoln.)

 

[Zoe]

And the 2004 remodelling of Nuneaton made it impossible

I believe it is still possible in theory but would involve having to reverse outside of the platforms. I was told a signalled passenger move is available though.

 

[Eagle]

I believe it is still possible in theory but would involve having to reverse outside of the platforms. I was told a signalled passenger move is available though.

It is possible, but would require coming to a standstill (and changing ends) on one of the fast lines about half a mile north of the station, which is clearly undesirable. Other than that you'd have to go all the way to Tamworth to be able to reverse at a station.

 

[Zoe]

It is possible, but would require coming to a standstill (and changing ends) on one of the fast lines about half a mile north of the station, which is clearly undesirable. Other than that you'd have to go all the way to Tamworth to be able to reverse at a station.

I seem to remember a signalman saying that there was a move available that involved reversing and using the flyover. I havne't got any signalling diagrams of the area though to confirm this.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, but they tend to be private initiatives, rather than BR (as was) actively seeking to develop its network.

What I don't ever recall is BR actually looking at developing its network because it had identified a gap in the market. If anything BR closed and uplifted far more route miles in the 70s and 80s than has been reinstated in the 90s.

The Cross-Country network was largely developed by BR (to ports for instance).
Norwich-Liverpool was a BR invention.
Cardiff-Portsmouth ditto.
Hazel Grove and Windsor Link around Manchester.
Liverpool loop/link.
Linking services north/south of Glasgow.
Thameslink (after some GLC pushing).

 

[ainsworth74]

The Railway Eye have exclusively revealed who will be heading up the DOR team to run ICWC

 

[jon0844]

A good team there!

 

[snail]

What are you trying to say here? It has already been shown that plenty of companies have bid, and continue to bid, without having a Franchise. Virgin have no special right to hang on to a TOC to make their life easier.

No, they certainly don't have a special right, but should be treated fairly. What I'm saying is that incumbent TOCs should not be compromised by the failings of DfT to run the application process properly.