(The below quotes are not intended as direct criticism of
@Djgr - I'm just quoting your OP - not saying that you necessarily agree with everything in the article!)
"Northern didn't pay for an an 'added extra' which would allow them to rescue each other when they break down.
"Instead only electric can rescue electric and diesel can only risk diesel, hugely reducing the capability to recover from failures.
I guess the problem here is cost/benefit analysis. It seems odd to order two fleets from the same manufacturer and not have them capable of working together but how often would this actually be necessary to justify the cost? For example, the Bombardier-built Voyagers had Alstom software so that they could couple to Pendolini but how often was that actually used? It's a useful functionality to have, certainly, but how many failures would there have to be to make the costs worthwhile?
For example, some people on here say that they don't want 222s going to XC because a failed Meridian couldn't be rescued by a Voyager (though XC already run three types of train on the Derby - Cheltenham corridor without anyone worrying about HSTs rescuing Turbostars!).
Ideally, I'd have liked the 195s and 331s be able to work in multiple, with the scope for the diesel unit to continue beyond the wires (as per the old Southern Region's 33s to Weymouth), but that's just me and my crayons talking.
"The people controlling the front line staff work with archaic systems, literally pencil and paper, no state of the art computer systems.
As others have said, old school technology can sometimes work pretty well - you're not worrying about phone coverage/ networks going down/ power cuts etc - there's sometimes something to be said for something cheap that requires minimal staff training (rather than installing complex technology when all you require is someone to write down how often something is happening)
"These supervisors are dotted all over the country so if a train breaks down and the crew are stuck with it, about six different people need to speak with each other to organise replacement staff.
What alternative is there? The Northern network sees lots of rural lines with trains only every hour or worse - so if there's a breakdown in some far flung place, it's probably going to be far from a supervisor - having your supervisors "dotted all over the country" may not be a bad thing if the alternative is that they are all in the same Manchester office, far from the scene of disruption.
Let's not defend the indefensible. Just because we're (mostly_ pro-rail on this forum doesn;t mean we should turn a blind eye to justified criticism of the railways.
Agreed - I've no problem with constructive criticism of the railway - it's amusing to see (on threads where people are dismissing suggestions for some Beeching-era re-opening) people take umbrage at people trying to pour realism on the optimistic proposal along the lines of "I thought this was meant to be a *pro* railway Forum" << it is pro railway but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't call out bad examples (which can easily tarnish the whole industry)
and write all the services involved with a list of the traincrew relief and the traincrews next work.
