<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>
> Cross Country was a reasonable operation when BR ceased to exist which
> provided useful, er, cross country services. There were still useful
> oddball services including some summer Saturday services none of which
> survived the disaster that was Operation Princess.

IIRC they were included in Operation Princess but disappeared in the
post-OP recovery.

> Operation Princess
> also saw the demise of other cross country services such as NE / SW.
>

NE-SW reappeared later, of course.

Much as I hate voyagers, I find the regular voyager service (when the full
pre-covid timetable runs, at least) much more convenient than the patchy
pre-voyager service of 1tph Bristol-Birmingham (through to a variable
destination), sometimes 2tph, occasionally serving Gloucester maybe, and
would I need to change for Manchester or not? A regular service of 1tph
Manchester and 1tph ECML is far more user-friendly.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <suhgoa$qn0$4@dont-email.me>, at 00:33:14 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>
>>> Running dmus under the wires for almost 100 miles was an incredibly
>>> stupid idea -- but do we ever expect sensible railway ideas from
>>> Whitehall ?
>>
>> Worst examples? Maybe Hull trains.
>
>Always a shoestring operator, initially with whatever stock was available
>as a follow-on to other orders, later with… whatever stock was available as
>a follow-on to other orders, then some cast-offs nobody else wanted which
>were foisted upon them, and finally… some stock which was available as a
>follow-on to other orders, but in the meantime someone else had had bi-mode
>trains approved for the UK.
>
>I'm not sure how you would expect them to not operate long distance diesel
>under the wires, as serving Hull is their USP; LHCS with a loco change
>perhaps?

I'm not disputing those elements, just trying to answer the pub-quiz
question "what's the longest diesel-under-wires". And I wasn't even
claiming it's the right answer (hence the non-invisible "Maybe").

On reflection, Grand Central is worse.

Oops, invisible word alert, that should be "what's the longest REMAINING
diesel-under-wires"

>>> Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
>>> exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
>>> with some degree of joint operation.
>>
>> One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run the
>> stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access operator.
>
>It's the major operator at so few stations that a deliberate franchise
>decision was made to not give XC any stations, so a couple of XC-only
>stations ended up managed by TOCs which didn't serve them.
>
>See also Gatwick Express, Caledonian Sleeper.

Again, I don't disagree with the reasons for them not having any
stations, but the point I was trying to make is that when choosing a new
operator for a train service, one consideration (not a compulsion)
should probably be to try to align it with whoever runs at least many of
the [more important] stations.

It must help in all kinds of ways - not just crew rest rooms, but I
often get brushed off at Ely [sorry!] station by the enquiry office
staff who won't help regarding their most prestigious flow (the Kings
Cross expresses) on the grounds "That's Great Northern and we are
Greater Anglia".

I know that's a historical accident going way back to when the
prestigious flow was Liverpool St-Cambridge-Norwich, and later Liverpool
St-Cambridge-Kings Lynn, but they've handed over the Littleport-Kings
Lynn stations to GN (despite the next nearest being Foxton to the south
of Cambridge. And it might be time to consider transferring Cambridge,
Cambridge North, Waterbeach and Ely to GN/Thameslink as they are now the
predominant operators on that section.

But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?

Anyway, the operator of the stations between Leicester and Peterborough
could have been aligned (either push or pull) with the operator of the
trains, had it been anyone other than XC. Similarly Whittlesea to Manea
inclusive where XC is 1tph and GA only 0.5tph.
--
Roland Perry

On 16/02/2022 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
> Again, I don't disagree with the reasons for them not having any
> stations, but the point I was trying to make is that when choosing a new
> operator for a train service, one consideration (not a compulsion)
> should probably be to try to align it with whoever runs at least many of
> the [more important] stations.

Network Rail?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 16/02/2022 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suhgoa$qn0$4@dont-email.me>, at 00:33:14 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Running dmus under the wires for almost 100 miles was an incredibly
>>>> stupid idea -- but do we ever expect sensible railway ideas from
>>>> Whitehall ?
>>>
>>> Worst examples? Maybe Hull trains.
>>
>> Always a shoestring operator, initially with whatever stock was available
>> as a follow-on to other orders, later with… whatever stock was
>> available as
>> a follow-on to other orders, then some cast-offs nobody else wanted which
>> were foisted upon them, and finally… some stock which was available as a
>> follow-on to other orders, but in the meantime someone else had had
>> bi-mode
>> trains approved for the UK.
>>
>> I'm not sure how you would expect them to not operate long distance
>> diesel
>> under the wires, as serving Hull is their USP; LHCS with a loco change
>> perhaps?
>
> I'm not disputing those elements, just trying to answer the pub-quiz
> question "what's the longest diesel-under-wires". And I wasn't even
> claiming it's the right answer (hence the non-invisible "Maybe").
>
> On reflection, Grand Central is worse.
>
> Oops, invisible word alert, that should be "what's the longest REMAINING
> diesel-under-wires"
>
>>>> Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
>>>> exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
>>>> with some degree of joint operation.
>>>
>>> One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run the
>>> stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access operator.
>>
>> It's the major operator at so few stations that a deliberate franchise
>> decision was made to not give XC any stations, so a couple of XC-only
>> stations ended up managed by TOCs which didn't serve them.
>>
>> See also Gatwick Express, Caledonian Sleeper.
>
> Again, I don't disagree with the reasons for them not having any
> stations, but the point I was trying to make is that when choosing a new
> operator for a train service, one consideration (not a compulsion)
> should probably be to try to align it with whoever runs at least many of
> the [more important] stations.
>
> It must help in all kinds of ways - not just crew rest rooms, but I
> often get brushed off at Ely [sorry!] station by the enquiry office
> staff who won't help regarding their most prestigious flow (the Kings
> Cross expresses) on the grounds "That's Great Northern and we are
> Greater Anglia".

The operatives are supposed to give impartial for all operators. Go
through the complaints procedure through the ToCs, then Transport Focus,
to the ORR.
>
> I know that's a historical accident going way back to when the
> prestigious flow was Liverpool St-Cambridge-Norwich, and later Liverpool
> St-Cambridge-Kings Lynn, but they've handed over the Littleport-Kings
> Lynn stations to GN (despite the next nearest being Foxton to the south
> of Cambridge. And it might be time to consider transferring Cambridge,
> Cambridge North, Waterbeach and Ely to GN/Thameslink as they are now the
> predominant operators on that section.
>
> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
We have a name which has been mentioned in another simultaneous thread.
My proposal for a location is somewhere *WITHOUT* a direct service to
London. This will give the big wigs an idea the chaos which evolves
during service disruption with the last of passenger information etc.
>
> Anyway, the operator of the stations between Leicester and Peterborough
> could have been aligned (either push or pull) with the operator of the
> trains, had it been anyone other than XC. Similarly Whittlesea to Manea
> inclusive where XC is 1tph and GA only 0.5tph.
XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.

On 2022-02-16 07:27:34 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <suhgoa$qn0$4@dont-email.me>, at 00:33:14 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Running dmus under the wires for almost 100 miles was an incredibly
>>>> stupid idea -- but do we ever expect sensible railway ideas from
>>>> Whitehall ?
>>>
>>> Worst examples? Maybe Hull trains.
>>
>> Always a shoestring operator, initially with whatever stock was available
>> as a follow-on to other orders, later with… whatever stock was available as
>> a follow-on to other orders, then some cast-offs nobody else wanted which
>> were foisted upon them, and finally… some stock which was available as a
>> follow-on to other orders, but in the meantime someone else had had bi-mode
>> trains approved for the UK.
>>
>> I'm not sure how you would expect them to not operate long distance diesel
>> under the wires, as serving Hull is their USP; LHCS with a loco change
>> perhaps?
>
> I'm not disputing those elements, just trying to answer the pub-quiz
> question "what's the longest diesel-under-wires". And I wasn't even
> claiming it's the right answer (hence the non-invisible "Maybe").

In the recent past, most likely the north-of-Edinburgh HST runs
(Aberdeen and Inverness) on the ECML.

> On reflection, Grand Central is worse.
>
> Oops, invisible word alert, that should be "what's the longest
> REMAINING diesel-under-wires"

Hull trains has a shiny new fleet of bimode units now, so no diesel
under the wires for them anymore. For current operations, I'd guess
either GC or some XC route.

>>>> Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
>>>> exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
>>>> with some degree of joint operation.
>>>
>>> One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run the
>>> stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access operator.
>>
>> It's the major operator at so few stations that a deliberate franchise
>> decision was made to not give XC any stations, so a couple of XC-only
>> stations ended up managed by TOCs which didn't serve them.
>>
>> See also Gatwick Express, Caledonian Sleeper.
>
> Again, I don't disagree with the reasons for them not having any
> stations, but the point I was trying to make is that when choosing a
> new operator for a train service, one consideration (not a compulsion)
> should probably be to try to align it with whoever runs at least many
> of the [more important] stations.

Achieving that is fundamentally incompatible with the basic premise of
the XC services. Their whole purpose is to provide through trains
between regions that don't follow the geographical restrictions of the
primary operators. If the actual services were split and handed to
various geographically distinct operators, the result would be trains
that spend a small part of their journey on "home" ground, with great
long distances "away from home".

> It must help in all kinds of ways - not just crew rest rooms, but I
> often get brushed off at Ely [sorry!] station by the enquiry office
> staff who won't help regarding their most prestigious flow (the Kings
> Cross expresses) on the grounds "That's Great Northern and we are
> Greater Anglia".
>
> I know that's a historical accident going way back to when the
> prestigious flow was Liverpool St-Cambridge-Norwich, and later
> Liverpool St-Cambridge-Kings Lynn, but they've handed over the
> Littleport-Kings Lynn stations to GN (despite the next nearest being
> Foxton to the south of Cambridge. And it might be time to consider
> transferring Cambridge, Cambridge North, Waterbeach and Ely to
> GN/Thameslink as they are now the predominant operators on that section.

Waterbeach is already a GN managed station.

Robin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>

There's never been any doubt about the name, and there's a competition on
to choose the HQ location:
<https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-launches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>

Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a conveniently
short name?

In message <suid32$mu3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:36:50 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>On 16/02/2022 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Again, I don't disagree with the reasons for them not having any
>>stations, but the point I was trying to make is that when choosing a
>>new operator for a train service, one consideration (not a
>>compulsion) should probably be to try to align it with whoever runs
>>at least many of the [more important] stations.
>
>Network Rail?

To date they only operate a handful of major stations. I don't think
they'd be thrilled to have Manea in their portfolio.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>>>> One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run the
>>>> stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access operator.
>>>
>>> It's the major operator at so few stations that a deliberate franchise
>>> decision was made to not give XC any stations, so a couple of XC-only
>>> stations ended up managed by TOCs which didn't serve them.
>>>
>>> See also Gatwick Express, Caledonian Sleeper.

>> Again, I don't disagree with the reasons for them not having any
>>stations, but the point I was trying to make is that when choosing a
>>new operator for a train service, one consideration (not a
>>compulsion) should probably be to try to align it with whoever runs
>>at least many of the [more important] stations.

>> It must help in all kinds of ways - not just crew rest rooms, but I
>>often get brushed off at Ely [sorry!] station by the enquiry office
>>staff who won't help regarding their most prestigious flow (the Kings
>>Cross expresses) on the grounds "That's Great Northern and we are
>>Greater Anglia".
>
>The operatives are supposed to give impartial for all operators.

That's ticket selling, not passenger assistance.

In this case the information would need to be extracted from GTR
"control" and it may even be the case they don't have their phone
number, let alone any willingness on either side to strike up a
conversation.

>Go through the complaints procedure through the ToCs, then Transport
>Focus, to the ORR.

Plenty of much better more fruitful walls to bang my head against.

>> I know that's a historical accident going way back to when the
>>prestigious flow was Liverpool St-Cambridge-Norwich, and later
>>Liverpool St-Cambridge-Kings Lynn, but they've handed over the
>>Littleport-Kings Lynn stations to GN (despite the next nearest being
>>Foxton to the south of Cambridge. And it might be time to consider
>>transferring Cambridge, Cambridge North, Waterbeach and Ely to
>>GN/Thameslink as they are now the predominant operators on that section.

>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?

>We have a name which has been mentioned in another simultaneous thread.

I've missed that, sorry.

> My proposal for a location is somewhere *WITHOUT* a direct service to
>London. This will give the big wigs an idea the chaos which evolves
>during service disruption with the last of passenger information etc.

Would they even be rail passengers at all, rather than driving expensive
company cars? Not that I subscribe much to the theory that the CEO of a
bicycle factory should be compelled to cycle to work, but obviously some
customer-experience helps.

The ticket staff at Ely [sorry!] have told me in the past they've given
up commuting to work by rail, because the service was simply too
unreliable. But they aren't the ones without the phone number for GTR's
control (or XC and EMR, come to that).

>> Anyway, the operator of the stations between Leicester and
>>Peterborough could have been aligned (either push or pull) with the
>>operator of the trains, had it been anyone other than XC. Similarly
>>Whittlesea to Manea inclusive where XC is 1tph and GA only 0.5tph.

>XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.

For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
by someone else. Give it to someone who could.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suihlt$132$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:55:09 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>>>> One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run
>>>>the stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access
>>>>operator.

>>> It's the major operator at so few stations that a deliberate
>>>franchise decision was made to not give XC any stations, so a couple
>>>of XC-only stations ended up managed by TOCs which didn't serve them.

>>> See also Gatwick Express, Caledonian Sleeper.

>> Again, I don't disagree with the reasons for them not having any
>>stations, but the point I was trying to make is that when choosing a
>>new operator for a train service, one consideration (not a compulsion)
>>should probably be to try to align it with whoever runs at least many
>>of the [more important] stations.
>
>Achieving that is fundamentally incompatible with the basic premise of
>the XC services. Their whole purpose is to provide through trains
>between regions that don't follow the geographical restrictions of the
>primary operators. If the actual services were split and handed to
>various geographically distinct operators, the result would be trains
>that spend a small part of their journey on "home" ground, with great
>long distances "away from home".

Indeed, but this is a structural issue about handing them an exclusive
franchise on a section line where all the stations are therefore
operated by someone else.

It would sway *me* towards picking either East Midlands or East Anglia
operators instead. Probably slanted to East Midlands as even then they
had a handful of services via Syston. Now that the Corby branch has
reopened, there's some mainline services too.

>> It must help in all kinds of ways - not just crew rest rooms, but I
>>often get brushed off at Ely [sorry!] station by the enquiry office
>>staff who won't help regarding their most prestigious flow (the Kings
>>Cross expresses) on the grounds "That's Great Northern and we are
>>Greater Anglia".

>> I know that's a historical accident going way back to when the
>>prestigious flow was Liverpool St-Cambridge-Norwich, and later
>>Liverpool St-Cambridge-Kings Lynn, but they've handed over the
>>Littleport-Kings Lynn stations to GN (despite the next nearest being
>>Foxton to the south of Cambridge. And it might be time to consider
>>transferring Cambridge, Cambridge North, Waterbeach and Ely to
>>GN/Thameslink as they are now the predominant operators on that section.
>
>Waterbeach is already a GN managed station.

I didn't know that. Another feature of the mixing up of station
operators is they tend to use different parking-apps.

Cambridge North and Ely are NCP, Waterbeach is Apcoa.

Littleport is Apcoa, again.

I also note NRE says of Littleport: "This station has Barrow or Level
crossing. We do not recommend that you use it without assistance." Well,
apart from the fact it's an unmanned station and passengers seemed happy
to use it unaided, it closed about two years ago to facilitate the down
platform extension. Of course, the photo is out of date too (taken
looking south from were the barrow crossing used to be).

The Station Plan is obviously similarly out of date, there's a second
stairs/ramp combo which should be shown at the top-right, plus another
ticket machine, ITSO readers, and one (or possibly two) blue badge
spaces.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>
>
>There's never been any doubt about the name,

I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
pretty fulltime one already.

>and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
><https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>
>Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a conveniently
>short name?

There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).

If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
Birmingham would tick the most boxes.

As instructed in the bidding paper, I need to mention #DestinationGBR
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>>
>>
>> There's never been any doubt about the name,
>
> I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
> but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
> person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
> pretty fulltime one already.

Andrew Haines is the most likely CEO for GBR. He's well respected, and has
extensive experience with both NR and passenger TOCs, as well as the CAA.

>
>> and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
>> <https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>> aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>>
>> Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a conveniently
>> short name?
>
> There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
> country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
> unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
> about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).
>
> If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
> Birmingham would tick the most boxes.

Could be, but Crewe and York might fight harder for it. And with the loss
of Honda, Swindon might also be keen.

On 16/02/2022 11:14, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's never been any doubt about the name,
>>
>> I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
>> but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
>> person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
>> pretty fulltime one already.
>
> Andrew Haines is the most likely CEO for GBR. He's well respected, and has
> extensive experience with both NR and passenger TOCs, as well as the CAA.
>
>>
>>> and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
>>> <https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>>> aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>>>
>>> Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a conveniently
>>> short name?
>>
>> There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
>> country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
>> unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
>> about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).
>>
>> If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
>> Birmingham would tick the most boxes.
>
> Could be, but Crewe and York might fight harder for it. And with the loss
> of Honda, Swindon might also be keen.
>
>
>

Swindon is too far south, and Crewe is debatable, is it north enough?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <suimb2$mdp$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:42 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's never been any doubt about the name,
>>
>> I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
>> but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
>> person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
>> pretty fulltime one already.
>
>Andrew Haines is the most likely CEO for GBR. He's well respected, and has
>extensive experience with both NR and passenger TOCs, as well as the CAA.

Sounds like a good fit, but wouldn't you at least need a replacement CEO
to head up Network Rail. There's talk of the Office-of-Fat-Contoller
being slim (see what I did there) so you couldn't run it also as NR HQ.

>>> and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
>>> <https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>>> aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>>>
>>> Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a conveniently
>>> short name?
>>
>> There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
>> country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
>> unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
>> about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).
>>
>> If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
>> Birmingham would tick the most boxes.
>
>Could be, but Crewe and York might fight harder for it. And with the loss
>of Honda, Swindon might also be keen.

Isn't York where OLR is run from (or is it just the LNER part of OLR)?
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:11:44 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/02/2022 11:14, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>>>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's never been any doubt about the name,
>>>
>>> I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
>>> but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
>>> person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
>>> pretty fulltime one already.
>>
>> Andrew Haines is the most likely CEO for GBR. He's well respected, and has
>> extensive experience with both NR and passenger TOCs, as well as the CAA.
>>
>>>
>>>> and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
>>>> <https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>>>> aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a conveniently
>>>> short name?
>>>
>>> There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
>>> country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
>>> unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
>>> about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).
>>>
>>> If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
>>> Birmingham would tick the most boxes.
>>
>> Could be, but Crewe and York might fight harder for it. And with the loss
>> of Honda, Swindon might also be keen.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Swindon is too far south, and Crewe is debatable, is it north enough?

On that basis, somewhere like Darlington might have the advantage. Of course, cynics might think the new HQ might be
quite a small, token office, with most of the jobs elsewhere.

Crewe has the advantage of being both a major existing railway site and also on the HS2 network, as well as close to
whatever NPR becomes.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:14:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <suimb2$mdp$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:42 on Wed, 16 Feb
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>>>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's never been any doubt about the name,
>>>
>>> I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
>>> but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
>>> person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
>>> pretty fulltime one already.
>>
>>Andrew Haines is the most likely CEO for GBR. He's well respected, and has
>>extensive experience with both NR and passenger TOCs, as well as the CAA.
>
>Sounds like a good fit, but wouldn't you at least need a replacement CEO
>to head up Network Rail. There's talk of the Office-of-Fat-Contoller
>being slim (see what I did there) so you couldn't run it also as NR HQ.

I think the GBR HQ has to be seen to be separate from the NR HQ in MK. Of course, there may no longer be a separate NR
organisation, once GBR is operating.

>
>>>> and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
>>>> <https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>>>> aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a conveniently
>>>> short name?
>>>
>>> There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
>>> country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
>>> unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
>>> about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).
>>>
>>> If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
>>> Birmingham would tick the most boxes.
>>
>>Could be, but Crewe and York might fight harder for it. And with the loss
>>of Honda, Swindon might also be keen.
>
>Isn't York where OLR is run from (or is it just the LNER part of OLR)?

The York office is just the LNER subsidiary. The OLR subsidiaries are simply the previous TOC offices, relabeled.

DfT OLR Holdings Ltd is based in Albany House, Petty France, London.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>
>
>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.
>
> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
> XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
> by someone else. Give it to someone who could.

Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they served?
*grin*

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <a7rp0hd2id5cl5pu8meb31l2p07ckfsua0@4ax.com>, at 12:26:50 on
Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:11:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 16/02/2022 11:14, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>>>>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's never been any doubt about the name,
>>>>
>>>> I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
>>>> but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
>>>> person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
>>>> pretty fulltime one already.
>>>
>>> Andrew Haines is the most likely CEO for GBR. He's well respected, and has
>>> extensive experience with both NR and passenger TOCs, as well as the CAA.
>>>
>>>>> and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
>>>>> <https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>>>>> aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a
>>>>>conveniently
>>>>> short name?
>>>>
>>>> There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
>>>> country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
>>>> unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
>>>> about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).
>>>>
>>>> If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
>>>> Birmingham would tick the most boxes.
>>>
>>> Could be, but Crewe and York might fight harder for it. And with the loss
>>> of Honda, Swindon might also be keen.
>>
>>Swindon is too far south, and Crewe is debatable, is it north enough?
>
>On that basis, somewhere like Darlington might have the advantage. Of
>course, cynics might think the new HQ might be
>quite a small, token office, with most of the jobs elsewhere.
>
>Crewe has the advantage of being both a major existing railway site and
>also on the HS2 network, as well as close to whatever NPR becomes.

NPR is probably going to become a yet-another-broken election promise.

ps Don't forget to mention to mention #DestinationGBR
--
Roland Perry

In message <srsp0hdbfan39l5qoikiaresivg2sgdu5m@4ax.com>, at 13:04:42 on
Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:14:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <suimb2$mdp$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:42 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <suihru$2et$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:22 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But I suppose the Fat Controller will be in charge real soon now, so
>>>>>> it's moot. Talking of which, do we have a name and an HQ location yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's never been any doubt about the name,
>>>>
>>>> I've missed that. The article below mentions a head of Transition Team,
>>>> but not necessarily the boss going forward. Surely it needs a separate
>>>> person to do stations and trains, because just the rails must be a
>>>> pretty fulltime one already.
>>>
>>>Andrew Haines is the most likely CEO for GBR. He's well respected, and has
>>>extensive experience with both NR and passenger TOCs, as well as the CAA.
>>
>>Sounds like a good fit, but wouldn't you at least need a replacement CEO
>>to head up Network Rail. There's talk of the Office-of-Fat-Contoller
>>being slim (see what I did there) so you couldn't run it also as NR HQ.
>
>I think the GBR HQ has to be seen to be separate from the NR HQ in MK.
>Of course, there may no longer be a separate NR
>organisation, once GBR is operating.
>
>>
>>>>> and there's a competition on to choose the HQ location:
>>>>> <https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/02/09/contest-formally-l
>>>>> aunches-to-find-gbr-s-new-hq>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you propose the obvious railway junction City with a
>>>>>conveniently
>>>>> short name?
>>>>
>>>> There's worse places in terms of connectivity to the rest of the
>>>> country (and it's within reach of London, where I know it's fatally
>>>> unfashionable to set up new HQs, but on the other hand it does have
>>>> about half the country's rail journeys revolving around it).
>>>>
>>>> If there were ever going to finish the full HS2 project, it seems to me
>>>> Birmingham would tick the most boxes.
>>>
>>>Could be, but Crewe and York might fight harder for it. And with the loss
>>>of Honda, Swindon might also be keen.
>>
>>Isn't York where OLR is run from (or is it just the LNER part of OLR)?
>
>The York office is just the LNER subsidiary. The OLR subsidiaries are
>simply the previous TOC offices, relabeled.
>
>DfT OLR Holdings Ltd is based in Albany House, Petty France, London.

That's the old passport Office I suppose, the contents of whose basement
got shredded when they moved out, leaving sundry Windrushers in the
lurch.

#DestinationGBR
--
Roland Perry

In message <suiv24$dib$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:43:32 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>
>>
>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.
>>
>> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
>> XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
>> by someone else. Give it to someone who could.
>
>Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they served?
>*grin*

Not sure why. But when their network was extended, it doesn't help that
several of the stations where they have virtually exclusive trains are
operated by someone else. The "someone else" should have operated the
services, I'm suggesting.
--
Roland Perry

On 16/02/2022 13:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>
>>
>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.
>>
>> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
>> XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
>> by someone else. Give it to someone who could.
>
> Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they served?
> *grin*

I don't think that's as stupid as its sounds. I'm just wondering if all
railway stations should be run by one body or perhaps by separate
companies for Scotland, Wales, and England.

In message <suj7ts$9b5$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:51 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 16/02/2022 13:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>
>>>
>>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.
>>>
>>> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
>>> XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
>>> by someone else. Give it to someone who could.

>> Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they
>>served?
>> *grin*
>
>I don't think that's as stupid as its sounds. I'm just wondering if
>all railway stations should be run by one body or perhaps by separate
>companies for Scotland, Wales, and England.

I thought it was already decided that at least the English ones (not
sure about the Welsh ones, but the request for bidders did mention
potential Wales sites, so perhaps yes) will be run by the Fat
Controller?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suiv24$dib$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:43:32 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>
>>>
>>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.
>>>
>>> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
>>> XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
>>> by someone else. Give it to someone who could.
>>
>> Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they served?
>> *grin*
>
> Not sure why.

It's no less ludicrous than your suggestion that the entire XC network
should have been given to the franchise with whom they shared the most
stations (stations, or staton calls? An important distinction if this was
to have been the case!). That could have resulted in MML, GWT or ScotRail
operating all the way to Aberdeen, Ramsgate and Penzance! Presumably you'd
have excluded the non-IC operators from this?

> But when their network was extended, it doesn't help that
> several of the stations where they have virtually exclusive trains are
> operated by someone else. The "someone else" should have operated the
> services, I'm suggesting.

So XC's 170 services in the hands of the West Midlands local operator, when
the entire point of breaking up CT was to remove long-distance services
from the West Midlands local operator…

Surely the other option would have been to give XC a handfull of stations
to actually manage themselves?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <sujb96$3a7$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:12:06 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suiv24$dib$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:43:32 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>>>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.
>>>>
>>>> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
>>>> XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
>>>> by someone else. Give it to someone who could.
>>>
>>> Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they served?
>>> *grin*
>>
>> Not sure why.
>
>It's no less ludicrous than your suggestion that the entire XC network
>should have been given to the franchise with whom they shared the most
>stations (stations, or staton calls?

I never said that. My remarks were ONLY directed at the decisions to be
made when potentially RE-allocating a service (eg Birmingham-Stansted,
or Nottingham-Liverpool) to a NEW franchisee, that it would make sense
if possible to allocate it to one which operated stations on the route,
avoiding if possible the situation of orphaned stations like Melton
Mowbray where (apart from one or two trains a day) the service is
provided by a TOC other than the one operating the station.

Or of course transferring the operation of the sation to the winner,
which in the case of XC isn't possible.

>An important distinction if this was to have been the case!). That
>could have resulted in MML, GWT or ScotRail operating all the way to
>Aberdeen, Ramsgate and Penzance! Presumably you'd have excluded the
>non-IC operators from this?

It wasn't what I was suggesting, so that's just wasted typing!

>> But when their network was extended, it doesn't help that
>> several of the stations where they have virtually exclusive trains are
>> operated by someone else. The "someone else" should have operated the
>> services, I'm suggesting.
>
>So XC's 170 services

We are only discussing Birmingham-Stansted, and the way it was
transferred from more obvious local operators to being a lone and
spindly branch off XC.

I have other issues with XC running the trains, because they continue to
airbrush out the difference between the classic routes and the
170-operated ones. They put posters up at Ely station bragging about
their a-seat First Class catering, when the closest place you are likely
to encounter that is the very far end of the trip, once you've alighted
at Birmingham.

I'm now wondering if their "on-the-fly" seat reservations system isn't
also only on their classic routes, but again there are posters about it
at Ely.

>in the hands of the West Midlands local operator, when
>the entire point of breaking up CT was to remove long-distance services
>from the West Midlands local operator…

East Midlands, actually. And if that was the objective, they did a
terrible job, with Liverpool-Norwich remaining with EMT.

They also retained Crewe-Newark (84 miles) and Doncaster-Peterborough
(93 miles).

>Surely the other option would have been to give XC a handfull of stations
>to actually manage themselves?

People seem convinced that XC is structurally incapable of operating
stations. I don't disagree.
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-17 08:26:17 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <sujb96$3a7$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:12:06 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suiv24$dib$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:43:32 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>>>>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not awarding
>>>>> XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the stations are operated
>>>>> by someone else. Give it to someone who could.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they served?
>>>> *grin*
>>>
>>> Not sure why.
>>
>> It's no less ludicrous than your suggestion that the entire XC network
>> should have been given to the franchise with whom they shared the most
>> stations (stations, or staton calls?
>
> I never said that. My remarks were ONLY directed at the decisions to be
> made when potentially RE-allocating a service (eg Birmingham-Stansted,
> or Nottingham-Liverpool) to a NEW franchisee, that it would make sense
> if possible to allocate it to one which operated stations on the route,
> avoiding if possible the situation of orphaned stations like Melton
> Mowbray where (apart from one or two trains a day) the service is
> provided by a TOC other than the one operating the station.

I appreciate the point you are getting at, but the situation arose
because, prior to the split, that is exactly how it had been operated,
as part of the Central franchise, and the result of that was very poor
quality service, so HMG specifically chose to carve it out in an
attempt to solve the problems with the route. The point is, they had
tried exactly the solution you advocate, by having it as part of
Central, and the result was a complete mess.

> Or of course transferring the operation of the sation to the winner,
> which in the case of XC isn't possible.
>
>> An important distinction if this was to have been the case!). That
>> could have resulted in MML, GWT or ScotRail operating all the way to
>> Aberdeen, Ramsgate and Penzance! Presumably you'd have excluded the
>> non-IC operators from this?
>
> It wasn't what I was suggesting, so that's just wasted typing!
>
>>> But when their network was extended, it doesn't help that
>>> several of the stations where they have virtually exclusive trains are
>>> operated by someone else. The "someone else" should have operated the
>>> services, I'm suggesting.
>>
>> So XC's 170 services
>
> We are only discussing Birmingham-Stansted, and the way it was
> transferred from more obvious local operators to being a lone and
> spindly branch off XC.

The whole point of XC is that all of its services are lone spindly
branches on other operators' territories. That's the entire character
of those services. And had it been transfered to Anglia, exactly the
same situation would have arisen, with the section between Peterborough
and Birmingham, as well as Cambridge-Stansted also being lone spidnly
branches off-territory.

> I have other issues with XC running the trains, because they continue
> to airbrush out the difference between the classic routes and the
> 170-operated ones. They put posters up at Ely station bragging about
> their a-seat First Class catering, when the closest place you are
> likely to encounter that is the very far end of the trip, once you've
> alighted at Birmingham.
>
> I'm now wondering if their "on-the-fly" seat reservations system isn't
> also only on their classic routes, but again there are posters about it
> at Ely.
>
>> in the hands of the West Midlands local operator, when
>> the entire point of breaking up CT was to remove long-distance services
>> from the West Midlands local operator…
>
> East Midlands, actually. And if that was the objective, they did a
> terrible job, with Liverpool-Norwich remaining with EMT.

Both, actually (and as the trains used for the service were generally
based out of Tysely, it was very much the West Midlands where it had
previously been based). It was recognised that Central trains as a
franchise was a mess, trying to do too many things, and too many
different sorts of things, leading to it doing none of them well. It
was trying to provide intensive commuter services around Birmingham,
local services in the East Midlands, rural services from there into
Lincolnshire as well as inter-regional services linking these different
regions. When the franchise ran out, it was decided to divide it into
three, resulting in the separate West Midlands franchise and East
Midlands francise, with the long distance IR routes given to XC. A
similar thing resulted in creating Trans Pennine as a distinct and
separate franchise from Northern.

> They also retained Crewe-Newark (84 miles) and Doncaster-Peterborough
> (93 miles).
>
>> Surely the other option would have been to give XC a handfull of stations
>> to actually manage themselves?
>
> People seem convinced that XC is structurally incapable of operating
> stations. I don't disagree.

It's inherent to the nature of the XC services that the vast majority
of the stations they serve will have a modest XC service and a much
more intesnive service provided by some other TOC. That's just the
nature of the services they run. The alternative would be to eliminate
long distance through-trains crossing regional boundaries and make
everyone change at least once, possibly more, to complete long distance
not-via-London journeys.

Robin

In message <sul7k2$odd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:21:52 on Thu, 17 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-02-17 08:26:17 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <sujb96$3a7$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:12:06 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <suiv24$dib$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:43:32 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <suifd9$dm8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:15 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so not
>>>>>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible decision.

>>>>>> For the second time, yes I agree. But it's a nudge towards not
>>>>>>awarding XC an exclusive franchise on a line where all the
>>>>>>stations are operated by someone else. Give it to someone who could.

>>>>> Perhaps XC should have been made operator for every station they
>>>>>served? *grin*

>>>> Not sure why.

>>> It's no less ludicrous than your suggestion that the entire XC
>>>network should have been given to the franchise with whom they
>>>shared the most stations (stations, or staton calls?

>> I never said that. My remarks were ONLY directed at the decisions to
>>be made when potentially RE-allocating a service (eg
>>Birmingham-Stansted, or Nottingham-Liverpool) to a NEW franchisee,
>>that it would make sense if possible to allocate it to one which
>>operated stations on the route, avoiding if possible the situation of
>>orphaned stations like Melton Mowbray where (apart from one or two
>>trains a day) the service is provided by a TOC other than the one
>>operating the station.
>
>I appreciate the point you are getting at, but the situation arose
>because, prior to the split, that is exactly how it had been operated,
>as part of the Central franchise, and the result of that was very poor
>quality service, so HMG specifically chose to carve it out in an
>attempt to solve the problems with the route.

I didn't see it particularly messed up. And EMT was running the far
longer Liverpool-Norwich service reasonably well too. I wonder if they
really looked at the reasons the service was thought to have problems.
It could be inherent issues with the pathing as much as poor driving
skills.

One aspect that did stand out (from time to time) was the way services
were terminated short at Cambridge (to catch up). It's perhaps just too
tempting, or is that again pathing issues at Stansted where having an
at-capacity single track tunnel, and having to share one platform with
GA services from the north, was no doubt fraught.

>The point is, they had tried exactly the solution you advocate, by
>having it as part of Central, and the result was a complete mess.

I suggested GA as a candidate too. That should also have advantages when
it comes to crew, east of Peterborough anyway. Whereas XC are out on a
limb the entire route.

>> Or of course transferring the operation of the sation to the winner,
>>which in the case of XC isn't possible.
>>
>>> An important distinction if this was to have been the case!). That
>>>could have resulted in MML, GWT or ScotRail operating all the way to
>>>Aberdeen, Ramsgate and Penzance! Presumably you'd have excluded the
>>>non-IC operators from this?
>> It wasn't what I was suggesting, so that's just wasted typing!
>>
>>>> But when their network was extended, it doesn't help that
>>>> several of the stations where they have virtually exclusive trains are
>>>> operated by someone else. The "someone else" should have operated the
>>>> services, I'm suggesting.
>>> So XC's 170 services
>> We are only discussing Birmingham-Stansted, and the way it was
>>transferred from more obvious local operators to being a lone and
>>spindly branch off XC.
>
>The whole point of XC is that all of its services are lone spindly
>branches on other operators' territories.

The whole point here is that on those corridors they share the
infrastructure with numerous other TOCs, even Penzance not really being
"lone spindly branch". Whereas the Stansted service (it doesn't apply to
the Nottingham 170's) really is a dramatic outlier if you look a their
map. And of course virtually the only provider between Leicester and
Peterborough.

>That's the entire character of those services. And had it been
>transfered to Anglia, exactly the same situation would have arisen,
>with the section between Peterborough and Birmingham, as well as
>Cambridge-Stansted also being lone spidnly branches off-territory.

I think you may be somewhat out of date. GA have been running services
to Stansted for several years, and even before then the branch into
Stansted Airport is only 2.5miles off their main line to Liverpool St!

Yes, Peterborough to Leicester and Birmingham is an outreach off their
existing territory, but plenty of TOCs successfully run skinny arms.
Ahem, including XC from Birmingham to Stansted!

>> I have other issues with XC running the trains, because they continue
>>to airbrush out the difference between the classic routes and the
>>170-operated ones. They put posters up at Ely station bragging about
>>their a-seat First Class catering, when the closest place you are
>>likely to encounter that is the very far end of the trip, once you've
>>alighted at Birmingham.

>> I'm now wondering if their "on-the-fly" seat reservations system
>>isn't also only on their classic routes, but again there are posters
>>about it at Ely.
>>
>>> in the hands of the West Midlands local operator, when
>>> the entire point of breaking up CT was to remove long-distance services
>>> from the West Midlands local operator…

>> East Midlands, actually. And if that was the objective, they did a
>>terrible job, with Liverpool-Norwich remaining with EMT.
>
>Both, actually (and as the trains used for the service were generally
>based out of Tysely, it was very much the West Midlands where it had
>previously been based).

I thought that the Birmingham-Liverpool section was broken off some time
before the rest got handed to XC? BICBW. Timetables in the attic.

>It was recognised that Central trains as a franchise was a mess, trying
>to do too many things, and too many different sorts of things, leading
>to it doing none of them well. It was trying to provide intensive
>commuter services around Birmingham, local services in the East
>Midlands, rural services from there into Lincolnshire as well as
>inter-regional services linking these different regions. When the
>franchise ran out, it was decided to divide it into three, resulting in
>the separate West Midlands franchise and East Midlands francise, with
>the long distance IR routes given to XC. A similar thing resulted in
>creating Trans Pennine as a distinct and separate franchise from Northern.

All I'm saying is that I don't necessarily think XC was the right
franchise to take the 170 service. One of them deep into previously
uncharted territory, and falsely marketed as if they were using
InterCity rolling stock and facilities.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if they'd used Voyagers (much as many of us hate
them) they could have avoided the worst consequences.

>> They also retained Crewe-Newark (84 miles) and Doncaster-Peterborough
>>(93 miles).
>>
>>> Surely the other option would have been to give XC a handfull of
>>>stations to actually manage themselves?

>> People seem convinced that XC is structurally incapable of operating
>>stations. I don't disagree.
>
>It's inherent to the nature of the XC services that the vast majority
>of the stations they serve will have a modest XC service and a much
>more intesnive service provided by some other TOC. That's just the
>nature of the services they run.

And we are discussing the "minority", especially Leicester to
Peterborough.

>The alternative would be to eliminate long distance through-trains
>crossing regional boundaries and make everyone change at least once,
>possibly more, to complete long distance not-via-London journeys.

That's a complete red herring. Nothing I have said implies that was my
goal. Indeed I've expressly said it *wasn't*, about three times already.
--
Roland Perry