The Gibb report in Southern Rail. Is it fair?

[physics34]

The Gat Ex is the oddest one given that there is little really to justify the premium pricing, trains are similar spec to what Southern and Thameslink services use. The website state that the trains run non-stop but I'm sure some started calling at Clapham Junction.

Well it is a lost soul really...it is so far away from the service that it originally was....a massive shadow of its former self.

I really dont understand the lack of vision and passenger focus when the stock was ordered, i reckon it was ordered on thd basis that Gat Ex will be scrapped eventually anyway

 

[adrock1976]

The Gatwick Express fares should have been abolished in 2008, when the Train Operating Company of that same name ceased to exist. It got merged with the former Southern Train Operating Company, which was functioning until the summer of 2015 when that was subsequently merged with the former First Capital Connect TOC.

None of the TOCs Gatwick Express, Southern, or First Capital Connect exist today. It is now Govia Thameslink Railway that is the TOC.

It is similar as to how Glasgow Rangers FC have not existed since 2012, when they got caught operating a tax dodging scam. As they did not have the funds to pay the tax that was due, they went into administration, and followed by the inevitable liquidation proceedings. Charles Green (formerly of Sheffield United) came along and set up Sevco and applied as a new member of the Scottish FA. Sevco soon became The Rangers, and are now known as Rangers International Football Club.

 

[otomous]

Well it is a lost soul really...it is so far away from the service that it originally was....a massive shadow of its former self.

I really dont understand the lack of vision and passenger focus when the stock was ordered, i reckon it was ordered on thd basis that Gat Ex will be scrapped eventually anyway

The clue is in the words premium fare. The treasury doesn't work out how much it needs, it takes as much as it can get away with. Higher fares equal higher revenue to its coffers at present, and a greater chance of its premium being paid and a lower subsidy to GTR under a conventional franchise. I get the impression it was merged with Southern to offer cost reduction opportunities, fair enough, but the level of service offered comes very low down the list, sadly.

 

[Agent_Squash]

The clue is in the words premium fare. The treasury doesn't work out how much it needs, it takes as much as it can get away with. Higher fares equal higher revenue to its coffers at present, and a greater chance of its premium being paid and a lower subsidy to GTR under a conventional franchise. I get the impression it was merged with Southern to offer cost reduction opportunities, fair enough, but the level of service offered comes very low down the list, sadly.

GTR really is becoming a Yes Minister farce, isn't it...

 

[AlterEgo]

The Gatwick Express fares should have been abolished in 2008, when the Train Operating Company of that same name ceased to exist. It got merged with the former Southern Train Operating Company, which was functioning until the summer of 2015 when that was subsequently merged with the former First Capital Connect TOC.

None of the TOCs Gatwick Express, Southern, or First Capital Connect exist today. It is now Govia Thameslink Railway that is the TOC.

It is similar as to how Glasgow Rangers FC have not existed since 2012, when they got caught operating a tax dodging scam. As they did not have the funds to pay the tax that was due, they went into administration, and followed by the inevitable liquidation proceedings. Charles Green (formerly of Sheffield United) came along and set up Sevco and applied as a new member of the Scottish FA. Sevco soon became The Rangers, and are now known as Rangers International Football Club.

Any excuse to bring Glasgow Rangers and their court case into the discussion, yet again. Weird.

 

[Marklund]

Any excuse to bring Glasgow Rangers and their court case into the discussion, yet again. Weird.

Precisely. Must be a follower of the other Ugly Sister.
In peace though... :roll:

 

[adrock1976]

Any excuse to bring Glasgow Rangers and their court case into the discussion, yet again. Weird.

Precisely. Must be a follower of the other Ugly Sister.
In peace though... :roll:

I have not made it clear before regarding Govia Thameslink Railway still pretending to have separate Train Operating Companies and using the 1872 - 2012 incarnation of the original Glasgow Rangers FC.

I cannot use the former high street stores of Woolworths, Blockbuster Video, or British Home Stores, as although they all went into liquidation, they have not continued trading and still pretend to be the same companies.

Govia Thameslink Railway pretend that Southern, Thameslink, and Gatwick Express are Train Operating Companies, when they have not been TOCs for a while. Where the Ibrox team fits in with my example is that the present incarnation started out as Sevco in 2012, but some supporters still pretend it is the original club founded in 1872.

As I am originally from the West Midlands, I am an Aston Villa fan, which you could argue that as me being into masochism. On a final point, I cannot stand either of the Ibrox or Parkhead mob, and once having an empty Buckfast bottle narrowly missing my head circa 1999 when walking between Glasgow Queen Street and Central stations as there was a march on, I do my best to avoid being in the city on the Saturday before the one closest to 12 July, and also the anniversary of the Easter Uprisings as it attracts a lot of undesirables.

Hope I've made things slightly clear.

 

[adrock1976]

Bringing this tread back on topic, I have a couple of questions in relation to the report.

1) Was this presented to the House of Commons for MPs in the constituencies affected to discuss, debate, and vote on?

2) Would this be the type of report that the government can have a read over, and put it on the shelf to gather dust if they perceive some of the recommendations are too controversial?

3) Would anything from the report be implemented?

 

[Bald Rick]

Bringing this tread back on topic, I have a couple of questions in relation to the report.

1) Was this presented to the House of Commons for MPs in the constituencies affected to discuss, debate, and vote on?

2) Would this be the type of report that the government can have a read over, and put it on the shelf to gather dust if they perceive some of the recommendations are too controversial?

3) Would anything from the report be implemented?

What is there for MPs to vote on?

 

[Agent_Squash]

Bringing this tread back on topic, I have a couple of questions in relation to the report.

1) Was this presented to the House of Commons for MPs in the constituencies affected to discuss, debate, and vote on?

2) Would this be the type of report that the government can have a read over, and put it on the shelf to gather dust if they perceive some of the recommendations are too controversial?

3) Would anything from the report be implemented?

The report is something that the DfT, not Parliament decides on. Otherwise Parliament would be voting on franchises!

 

[Marklund]

I have not made it clear before regarding Govia Thameslink Railway still pretending to have separate Train Operating Companies and using the 1872 - 2012 incarnation of the original Glasgow Rangers FC.

I cannot use the former high street stores of Woolworths, Blockbuster Video, or British Home Stores, as although they all went into liquidation, they have not continued trading and still pretend to be the same companies.

Govia Thameslink Railway pretend that Southern, Thameslink, and Gatwick Express are Train Operating Companies, when they have not been TOCs for a while. Where the Ibrox team fits in with my example is that the present incarnation started out as Sevco in 2012, but some supporters still pretend it is the original club founded in 1872.

As I am originally from the West Midlands, I am an Aston Villa fan, which you could argue that as me being into masochism. On a final point, I cannot stand either of the Ibrox or Parkhead mob, and once having an empty Buckfast bottle narrowly missing my head circa 1999 when walking between Glasgow Queen Street and Central stations as there was a march on, I do my best to avoid being in the city on the Saturday before the one closest to 12 July, and also the anniversary of the Easter Uprisings as it attracts a lot of undesirables.

Hope I've made things slightly clear.

Not really. You've brought up the Sevco point in very tenuous circumstances before, perhaps not in this one, but it's a repeated analogy.

Here
Here
Here
and
Here

If you wanted to use a high street name, try Jessops for a change?

 

[306024]

GTR really is becoming a Yes Minister farce, isn't it...

Yes indeed

The one bit of the Gibb Report that made no sense to me was the off peak reductions to get everything right for the evening peak. That appeared to complicate matters rather than simplify.

The cornerstone of a commuter type operation such as Southern, or any former Network Southeast type operation, is a consistent standard hour timetable, with sensible turnround times and crew diagrams that don't swap trains all over the place.

Get that right and you can recover from even quite major disruption relatively quickly.

 

[HH]

Yes indeed

The one bit of the Gibb Report that made no sense to me was the off peak reductions to get everything right for the evening peak. That appeared to complicate matters rather than simplify.

The cornerstone of a commuter type operation such as Southern, or any former Network Southeast type operation, is a consistent standard hour timetable, with sensible turnround times and crew diagrams that don't swap trains all over the place.

Get that right and you can recover from even quite major disruption relatively quickly.

More to the point, it's standard operating process to cancel some trains, if necessary, in order to recover for the evening peak. Effectively doing it every day, just in case, seems a very bad idea to me.

 

[coppercapped]

More to the point, it's standard operating process to cancel some trains, if necessary, in order to recover for the evening peak. Effectively doing it every day, just in case, seems a very bad idea to me.

The Gibb report did not suggest a 'firebreak' as a permanent solution, but a fix in the short term until other measures, such as infrastructure reliability improvements, train crew diagramming, introduction of new rolling stock, effects of the London Bridge rebuild and so on were showing results. The 'firebreak' concept is to try to ensure that any delays occurring in the morning did not carry over into the evening peak. The report stated:

For the immediate future I recommend that there needs to be a “firebreak” in the current timetable between 1200 and 1400 that enables the system to recover fully for the evening peak. This should mean that every train has at least a 30 minute break in its operation, and is parked, even if this means every route having at least one service missing from its hourly clockface pattern.

My emphasis.

I do wish people, generally, would comment on the whole picture rather than just a snippet taken out of context.

 

[Hophead]

Bringing this tread back on topic, I have a couple of questions in relation to the report.

1) Was this presented to the House of Commons for MPs in the constituencies affected to discuss, debate, and vote on?

2) Would this be the type of report that the government can have a read over, and put it on the shelf to gather dust if they perceive some of the recommendations are too controversial?

3) Would anything from the report be implemented?

1. There was a Westminster Hall debate for interested members to air their opinions. Following which, your point 2 applies.

 

[adrock1976]

1. There was a Westminster Hall debate for interested members to air their opinions. Following which, your point 2 applies.

Many thanks - it confirmed what I suspected all along.

 

[coppercapped]

Many thanks - it confirmed what I suspected all along.

It wasn't put on the shelf to gather dust. Among other things Gibb recommended extra expenditure on the infrastructure and, lo and behold...!

Facts are sometimes more interesting than suspicions.

 

[Chrisgr31]

It wasn't put on the shelf to gather dust. Among other things Gibb recommended extra expenditure on the infrastructure and, lo and behold...!

Facts are sometimes more interesting than suspicions.

Strange how that was announced long before the report was published. The report was then held back until well after the General Election and what progress has there been on the other recommendations?

 

[coppercapped]

Strange how that was announced long before the report was published. The report was then held back until well after the General Election and what progress has there been on the other recommendations?

Oh dear.

The report is dated 30th December 2016. It is also likely that the DfT was aware of the contents before the official publication date. The release of the monies for the infrastructure happened after the report was completed.

The date on which it was released to the public is irrelevant - it was prepared for the Secretary of State for Transport.

As this was a report to the SoS, and not to the wider world, why do you think you should be informed of subsequent developments?

 

[Chrisgr31]

As this was a report to the SoS, and not to the wider world, why do you think you should be informed of subsequent developments?

It doesnt seem unreasonable that passengers who are travelling on the services, and funding it alongside taxpayers, should be kept informed of subsequent developments. So as a passenger, taxpayer and voter it would appear I should be kept informed.

 

[coppercapped]

It doesnt seem unreasonable that passengers who are travelling on the services, and funding it alongside taxpayers, should be kept informed of subsequent developments. So as a passenger, taxpayer and voter it would appear I should be kept informed.

No, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

But if you read the report you will find that much of it is to do with operational, organisational and commercial matters. Changes here would be invisible to the outside observer except that, one would hope, performance improves.

Moving some services to other franchises would anyway only happen when new franchises are awarded. The big budget items, for example additional depots and the suggested electrification to Uckfield, would be promoted and funded as stand-alone projects and any announcement made at the time, if they were to be approved.

If you have specific questions for the SoS about other changes I suggest you write to your MP.

 

[306024]

The Gibb report did not suggest a 'firebreak' as a permanent solution, but a fix in the short term until other measures, such as infrastructure reliability improvements, train crew diagramming, introduction of new rolling stock, effects of the London Bridge rebuild and so on were showing results. The 'firebreak' concept is to try to ensure that any delays occurring in the morning did not carry over into the evening peak.

My emphasis.

I do wish people, generally, would comment on the whole picture rather than just a snippet taken out of context.

Thank you for your emphasis. Except that no one was saying it was permanent. In fact given the date of the report, the 'immediate future' must have been and gone.

 

[Carlisle]

Any excuse to bring Glasgow Rangers and their court case into the discussion, yet again. Weird.

Obviously a closet Celtic fan