It appears the DFT have used the additional year option in the current XC direct award, so it will run till Oct 2020
If only life was as simple as that. The DfT arent interested in passengers.I'm surprised the DfT don't ask XC to improve the levels of service.
I know they'll be terms with the contract but in real world situations, we won't see any changes over the next year.
If XC say no, just run it under DOR?
They didn't have a lot of other choice. XC looked at extending the voyagers but the DfT said no...It does make you wonder what's the point of the whole franchise system. XC passengers are crying out for improved capacity and services, but this just looks like a reward for giving passengers a dreadful travelling experience and encouraging more of the same.
They arent going to re run that shambles of a tender this soon. There will be another direct award.Surely if the XC direct award only runs until Oct 2020, then the dft should now be inviting bidders for the Franchise from Oct 2020 which is only 15 months away?
Surely if the XC direct award only runs until Oct 2020, then the dft should now be inviting bidders for the Franchise from Oct 2020 which is only 15 months away?
Well October 2020 is ample time to bring in more capacity - it's almost impossible for XC to carry on running short trains on busy routes til at least then. Surely we're not waiting potentially 2 more years?
If that's the case then I can kind of forecast a damaged network where people are trying to get on trains but can't!
Depends what it is... with a derogaration and some political willpower there are some obvious possibilities.Is 15 months 'ample time' to get more stock ?. Where from ?
Full electric units are no good. There was only one option for lengthening the voyagers which was bombardier.. obviously.I don't know the detail of the "negotiations", but in my experience you need to negotiate with more than one supplier to get the best deal.
XC might have said we could extend the voyagers for a really high price because there was no incentive for them to be competitive.
A more hungry supplier, without the benefits of incumbency might have quoted a more competitive price, or even come up with an alternative such as running extra electric units that are currently in storage on the Manchester to Birmingham portion of XC route to alleviate over-crowding.
We may never know.
And that ship has well & truly sailed.Full electric units are no good. There was only one option for lengthening the voyagers which was bombardier.. obviously.
Everyone keeps saying this but they are not PRM compliant. You are looking at around 12-15 months lead time & thats if the decision was made now.HST's
Everyone keeps saying this but they are not PRM compliant. You are looking at around 12-15 months lead time & thats if the decision was made now.
PRM compliance is a bit of a red herring..Everyone keeps saying this but they are not PRM compliant. You are looking at around 12-15 months lead time & thats if the decision was made now.
If we just ignore it & carry on, what happens? I often wonder that. Why can't we just keep the trains in traffic (they have been perfectly acceptable until now) & pay any fines that may or may not come our way. That will be a damn sight cheaper than new or upgraded trains until such time as they are introduced.PRM compliance is a bit of a red herring..
I thought they already had a five year extension (2019 to 2024)...It appears the DFT have used the additional year option in the current XC direct award, so it will run till Oct 2020
They didn't have a lot of other choice. XC looked at extending the voyagers but the DfT said no...
Full electric units are no good. There was only one option for lengthening the voyagers which was bombardier.. obviously.
I don’t believe “XC” the TOC ever had any firm role in the Voyager extension proposal. IIRC Bombardier made the proposal directly to DfT, and it was never a part of a bid by a franchisee. Didn’t it all happen around the time Bombardier was throwing a tantrum about losing a major contract to Siemens?And that ship has well & truly sailed.
I thought they already had a five year extension (2019 to 2024)...
The information is correct. Dont know if it's been publicly announced yet but I would be surprised if it hasn't.Is there any information of a direct award where did you here this?
Is there any doubt the DFT could bring improvements if they wanted to? They oversee everything. They could request XC to begin a tender for additional stock, just as the DFT I believe requested East Midlands Trains to start a tendering process for fitting retention tanks and other basic PRM mods to the HST fleet regardless that they were the outgoing TOC.I'm surprised the DfT don't ask XC to improve the levels of service.
I know they'll be terms with the contract but in real world situations, we won't see any changes over the next year.
If XC say no, just run it under DOR?
And according to posters in the East Midlands Railway thread, the off lease WMR 170s are bound for EMR and not XC.It does make you wonder what's the point of the whole franchise system. XC passengers are crying out for improved capacity and services, but this just looks like a reward for giving passengers a dreadful travelling experience and encouraging more of the same.
Unless the discrimination against people with disabilities can be justified as being 'necessary' - which is a really high threshold to meet and basically means there is no other alternative at all - the court the TOC gets taken to by disability rights groups rules that using the non-compliant trains is unlawful.If we just ignore it & carry on, what happens? I often wonder that. Why can't we just keep the trains in traffic (they have been perfectly acceptable until now) & pay any fines that may or may not come our way. That will be a damn sight cheaper than new or upgraded trains until such time as they are introduced.