On 17/02/2022 08:26, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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.

XC does not run any railway stations at the moment so they do not have
any structure to run railway stations. I don't think it worth spending
money to create the structure for the few railway stations where they
are the majority operator.

From a passenger's point of view they would be better off spending
money on training more train crew so they can run a full service and
replacing their team who negotiate with the unions. Who runs the
railway stations is the least of the industry's problems at the moment.

In message <sulcc3$o9t$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:42:58 on Thu, 17 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>> People seem convinced that XC is structurally incapable of operating
>>stations. I don't disagree.
>
>XC does not run any railway stations at the moment so they do not have
>any structure to run railway stations. I don't think it worth spending
>money to create the structure for the few railway stations where they
>are the majority operator.

I don't disagree (there's an echo in here).

But what I would (and have) suggest is that the Birmingham-Stansted
franchise could have found a much more suitable home than XC, not least
one prepared to operate the stations where they had a virtual monopoly
of the trains.

>From a passenger's point of view they would be better off spending
>money on training more train crew so they can run a full service and
>replacing their team who negotiate with the unions. Who runs the
>railway stations is the least of the industry's problems at the moment.

I refer you to the answer I gave recently:

"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".

XC could also take their marketing team outside and give them a slapping
for misleading the public into thinking their 170 services had the same
facilities as their classic ones. They were either in denial, stupid, or
couldn't face confessing their brand had been devalued.
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-17 11:25:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> 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.

I was living in Cambridge at that time, and the service was frankly
terrible. It was frequently late, and at the time it was the only
direct connection between there and Stansted Airport, but it was so
frequently cancelled, that it may as well not have been provided at all.

> 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.

Central was broken up in 2007. The extension of the Cambridge-Norwich
route to Stansted didn't come about until after NXEA replaced "one" in
2012.

>> 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.

Would it? It would bring Stansted and Ely on, that's it. Cambridge and
Peterborough are operated by other TOCs and the other stations have no
meaningful facilities. There's also the issue that the only diesel
depot on Anglia is Crown Point in Norwich, which is not particularly
conveniently located for serving this 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!

See above. Anglia started serving that route in 2012. The
Stansted-Brum route was transfered to XC in 2007.

> 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!

So you agree it is successfully run by XC. No problem, then.

>>> 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 split when Central ceased to exist, which is what led to the
transfer to XC.

>> 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.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:08:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

I think that's already happened. What's now planned (subject to funds being available) is already well short of what
had been promised.

In message <ijks0hdle1gv9eojlgeji6kgvhkitg32bi@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:08:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think that's already happened.

From June last year:

"Downing Street has moved to reassure northern transport leaders the
region's flagship levelling up project is in safe hands after
rumours it could be scrapped by ministers.
....
Boris Johnson said in a speech in Manchester in 2019: 'I want to be
the prime minister who does with Northern Powerhouse Rail what we
did for Crossrail in London'."

Deliver it years late and significantly over-budget?

>What's now planned (subject to funds being available) is already well
>short of what had been promised.

Yesterday's storm reminds me that a TV news reporter referred to an
energy company struggling to repair the wind damage earlier in the year
as "Northern Powerhouse", rather than "Northern Powergrid".
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>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?

I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what responsibilities the new-style operators will have (what's been
announced so far doesn't make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that they'll perform similar functions to the current
TOCs, but with no revenue responsibility or commercial freedom. As such, it's not very clear what the point of having
private sector operators is, if they have no private sector freedoms or responsibilities.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:08:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <ijks0hdle1gv9eojlgeji6kgvhkitg32bi@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:08:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I think that's already happened.
>
> From June last year:
>
> "Downing Street has moved to reassure northern transport leaders the
> region's flagship levelling up project is in safe hands after
> rumours it could be scrapped by ministers.

That was all superseded by the integrated rail plan, which demonstrated that the flagship levelling-up project has been
levelled-down.

>...
> Boris Johnson said in a speech in Manchester in 2019: 'I want to be
> the prime minister who does with Northern Powerhouse Rail what we
> did for Crossrail in London'."
>
>Deliver it years late and significantly over-budgetI

If only it was that good! Unlike Crossrail, they'll be getting much less than was promised, and there isn't really a
budget at all.

On 17/02/2022 14:19, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:08:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <ijks0hdle1gv9eojlgeji6kgvhkitg32bi@4ax.com>, at 13:50:32 on
>> Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:08:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I think that's already happened.
>>
>> From June last year:
>>
>> "Downing Street has moved to reassure northern transport leaders the
>> region's flagship levelling up project is in safe hands after
>> rumours it could be scrapped by ministers.
>
> That was all superseded by the integrated rail plan, which demonstrated that the flagship levelling-up project has been
> levelled-down.

That's an excellent way of describing it.
>
>> ...
>> Boris Johnson said in a speech in Manchester in 2019: 'I want to be
>> the prime minister who does with Northern Powerhouse Rail what we
>> did for Crossrail in London'."
>>
>> Deliver it years late and significantly over-budgetI
>
> If only it was that good! Unlike Crossrail, they'll be getting much less than was promised, and there isn't really a
> budget at all.
>

In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31 on
Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what responsibilities
>the new-style operators will have (what's been announced so far doesn't
>make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that they'll perform similar
>functions to the current TOCs, but with no revenue responsibility or
>commercial freedom. As such, it's not very clear what the point of
>having private sector operators is, if they have no private sector
>freedoms or responsibilities.

Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?

TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.

Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too big"
Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in another
thread.

The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
they said, is timetabling.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31 on
> Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what responsibilities
>> the new-style operators will have (what's been announced so far doesn't
>> make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that they'll perform similar
>> functions to the current TOCs, but with no revenue responsibility or
>> commercial freedom. As such, it's not very clear what the point of
>> having private sector operators is, if they have no private sector
>> freedoms or responsibilities.
>
> Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
> ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?

Yes, I think so, but Shapps seems to want to dump more responsibilities on
to them than are compatible with that humble role, such as train
procurement and punctuality.

>
> TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
> organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.

It would be much smaller than the NHS or BR of old.

>
> Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
> we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too big"
> Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in another
> thread.
>
> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
> they said, is timetabling.

Yes, and ticket pricing.

In message <sunrv6$hv6$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:26 on Fri, 18 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31 on
>> Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what responsibilities
>>> the new-style operators will have (what's been announced so far doesn't
>>> make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that they'll perform similar
>>> functions to the current TOCs, but with no revenue responsibility or
>>> commercial freedom. As such, it's not very clear what the point of
>>> having private sector operators is, if they have no private sector
>>> freedoms or responsibilities.
>>
>> Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
>> ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?
>
>Yes, I think so, but Shapps seems to want to dump more responsibilities on
>to them than are compatible with that humble role, such as train
>procurement and punctuality.

Isn't a significant part of the plot trying to gain some central
responsibility for punctuality, which is just as much caused by Network
Rail shortcomings, as bad train drivers.

>> TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
>> organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.
>
>It would be much smaller than the NHS or BR of old.

NHS has been balkanised to a couple of hundred separate Hospital Trusts
(each responsible for their own quirky personnel policies) and not quite
so many whatever CCGs are called this week, through to nearly 10k
individual GP practices which once again have very individual and quirky
personnel policies.

BR of old used to employ vast numbers of essentially unskilled manual
staff, which is no longer required post-kettle, and now so many stations
have token staffing. I doubt there was ever one centralised recruitment
process.

>> Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
>> we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too big"
>> Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in another
>> thread.
>>
>> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
>> they said, is timetabling.
>
>Yes, and ticket pricing.

I didn't mention that, because it's a huge can of worms. Even trying to
harmonise something as simple as "when is peak and off-peak" is a
massive task.
--
Roland Perry

On 18/02/2022 07:22, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31 on
> Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what
>> responsibilities the new-style operators will have (what's been
>> announced so far doesn't make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that
>> they'll perform similar functions to the current TOCs, but with no
>> revenue responsibility or commercial freedom. As such, it's not very
>> clear what the point of having private sector operators is, if they
>> have no private sector freedoms or responsibilities.
>
> Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
> ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?
>
> TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
> organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.
>
> Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
> we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too big"
> Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in another
> thread.
>
> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
> they said, is timetabling.

"Control" operates OK when everything is running normally or with one or
two minor problems. However "Control" gets too quickly overwhelmed when
there are too many minor problems or a major one.

In message <suo2ik$qlh$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:12 on Fri, 18 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 18/02/2022 07:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31
>>on Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry
>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what
>>>responsibilities the new-style operators will have (what's been
>>>announced so far doesn't make sense). But, on the whole, it seems
>>>that they'll perform similar functions to the current TOCs, but with
>>>no revenue responsibility or commercial freedom. As such, it's not
>>>very clear what the point of having private sector operators is, if
>>>they have no private sector freedoms or responsibilities.

>> Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
>>ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?

>> TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
>>organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.

>> Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
>>we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too big"
>>Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in another
>>thread.
>> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean
>>what they said, is timetabling.
>
>"Control" operates OK when everything is running normally or with one
>or two minor problems. However "Control" gets too quickly overwhelmed
>when there are too many minor problems or a major one.

In your opinion, would it be better or worse if there was just one
"Control" in a central location. You'd have spare assets if just one
region was affected, but you'd lose potentially invaluable local
knowledge.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:42:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <sunrv6$hv6$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:26 on Fri, 18 Feb
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31 on
>>> Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what responsibilities
>>>> the new-style operators will have (what's been announced so far doesn't
>>>> make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that they'll perform similar
>>>> functions to the current TOCs, but with no revenue responsibility or
>>>> commercial freedom. As such, it's not very clear what the point of
>>>> having private sector operators is, if they have no private sector
>>>> freedoms or responsibilities.
>>>
>>> Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
>>> ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?
>>
>>Yes, I think so, but Shapps seems to want to dump more responsibilities on
>>to them than are compatible with that humble role, such as train
>>procurement and punctuality.
>
>Isn't a significant part of the plot trying to gain some central
>responsibility for punctuality, which is just as much caused by Network
>Rail shortcomings, as bad train drivers.

Yes, but it's apparently going to used as one of the measures influencing what they're paid.

>
>>> TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
>>> organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.
>>
>>It would be much smaller than the NHS or BR of old.
>
>NHS has been balkanised to a couple of hundred separate Hospital Trusts
>(each responsible for their own quirky personnel policies) and not quite
>so many whatever CCGs are called this week, through to nearly 10k
>individual GP practices which once again have very individual and quirky
>personnel policies.
>
>BR of old used to employ vast numbers of essentially unskilled manual
>staff, which is no longer required post-kettle, and now so many stations
>have token staffing. I doubt there was ever one centralised recruitment
>process.

When BR was privatised, kettles had been gone for about 25 years. The new GBR organisation will obviously omit many
functions performed by BR, such as freight, R&D, signalling design, much of the rolling stock maintenance, etc. So, even
if it was fully nationalised, it would be much smaller than BR in 1994. And, just like the NHS and BR, it would be split
into many divisions.

On 18/02/2022 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suo2ik$qlh$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:12 on Fri, 18 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 18/02/2022 07:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31
>>> on  Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what
>>>> responsibilities the new-style operators will have (what's been
>>>> announced so far doesn't make sense). But, on the whole, it seems
>>>> that  they'll perform similar functions to the current TOCs, but
>>>> with no  revenue responsibility or commercial freedom. As such, it's
>>>> not very  clear what the point of having private sector operators
>>>> is, if they  have no private sector freedoms or responsibilities.
>
>>>  Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
>>> ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?
>
>>>  TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
>>> organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.
>
>>>  Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
>>> we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too
>>> big" Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in
>>> another thread.
>>>  The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean
>>> what  they said, is timetabling.
>>
>> "Control" operates OK when everything is running normally or with one
>> or two minor problems.  However "Control" gets too quickly overwhelmed
>> when there are too many minor problems or a major one.
>
> In your opinion, would it be better or worse if there was just one
> "Control" in a central location. You'd have spare assets if just one
> region was affected, but you'd lose potentially invaluable local knowledge.

I'm not sure. What I do know is that ToC staff with the authority to
make decisions should be embedded. That's what will make the
configuration difficult.

In message <sulerc$b33$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:14 on Thu, 17 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-02-17 11:25:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <sul7k2$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
>>>>

>>> 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.
>
>I was living in Cambridge at that time, and the service was frankly
>terrible. It was frequently late, and at the time it was the only
>direct connection between there and Stansted Airport, but it was so
>frequently cancelled, that it may as well not have been provided at all.

I'm still of the opinion that those cancellations are systemic to the
pathing (even absent any Cambridge-Stansted GA shuttles), and not
something a change of TOC would change.

>>> 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.
>
>Would it? It would bring Stansted and Ely on, that's it.

GA had (have) crew familiar with Peterborough-Ely as well.

>Cambridge and Peterborough are operated by other TOCs

Cambridge is operated by GA!

As result of the introduction of XC, there are now five TOCs at PBO:
LNER, GN/Thameslink, EMT/EMR, GA and XC; and four at Ely: GN, GA,
EMT/EMR and XC.

Before the Birmingham services were lost, crew changes were possible at
Ely between the two routes to beyond PBO, which must have helped with
rostering. They may have also changed crews at PBO too.

>and the other stations have no meaningful facilities.

I'm pretty sure Ely has crew facilities.

>There's also the issue that the only diesel depot on Anglia is Crown
>Point in Norwich, which is not particularly conveniently located for
>serving this route.

And where is XC's diesel depot. Don't tell me it's in Birmingham,
because that would be even less convenient. I suspect they took over
facilities from Central at Cambridge, as could GA have done.

>>>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!
>
>See above. Anglia started serving that route in 2012.

They were serving all the way to the junction 2.5miles away from the
airport, and then to Bishops Stortford etc. That must help!

>The Stansted-Brum route was transfered to XC in 2007.
>
>> 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!
>
>So you agree it is successfully run by XC. No problem, then.

The point being that if they can run it despite the "out of area"
logistical challenges, so could GA with half of such challenges.

>> 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 split when Central ceased to exist, which is what led to the
>transfer to XC.

Attic raided, and as I suspected the service was split before then.

On 23rd May 2004. (Immediately previous timetable has the through
service).

Until 26th Sept 2004, the network diagram on the front page of the
pocket timetable was unchanged, but then they released a new one with
the disjoint clearly shown.

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Central-Citylink-2004.jpg

But this alteration, and any benefit from it (ie delays not cascading
through) doesn't seem to have enabled them to keep the franchise at the
end of 2007.

In other news in the same box from the attic: a pre-"Simplification" MML
fares leaflet with:

Standard Open, Standard Plus Parking, Weekender, Saver, Offpeak Day
Travelcard,

And specified trains only outbound; 50% refunds available if you decide
not to travel:

Flexi Return, Super Advance, Apex, London Weekend,

And specified trains only outbound; no refunds available:

Capital, 2-Some, 4Sight, Senior.

>> 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.
>
>If there were enough voyagers, it would be a suitable route for them.
>Unfortunately there aren't, and something has to run the route.

Also unfortunately, they didn't alter their marketing material to
reflect this. And to some extent still haven't more than a decade later.

>>>> 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.
>
>And Bristol, Exeter, York, Leeds, Edinburgh, Newcastle .... pretty much
>everywhere significant they run.

On 18/02/2022 07:22, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31 on
> Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what
>> responsibilities the new-style operators will have (what's been
>> announced so far doesn't make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that
>> they'll perform similar functions to the current TOCs, but with no
>> revenue responsibility or commercial freedom. As such, it's not very
>> clear what the point of having private sector operators is, if they
>> have no private sector freedoms or responsibilities.
>
> Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
> ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?
>
> TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
> organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.
>
> Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
> we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too big"
> Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in another
> thread.
>
> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
> they said, is timetabling.

I understood that Network Rail was already responsible for all
compilation of the timetables; the hard part was agreeing with passenger
& freight operators when their requests for train paths could actually
be met.

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/02/2022 07:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <rvls0hpmta16qqs0l7nt3gdho6njksp0tg@4ax.com>, at 14:16:31 on
>> Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:29:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I don't think that is clear. We don't really know what
>>> responsibilities the new-style operators will have (what's been
>>> announced so far doesn't make sense). But, on the whole, it seems that
>>> they'll perform similar functions to the current TOCs, but with no
>>> revenue responsibility or commercial freedom. As such, it's not very
>>> clear what the point of having private sector operators is, if they
>>> have no private sector freedoms or responsibilities.
>>
>> Isn't the idea that they become outsourced suppliers of boots on the
>> ground, a bit like the London Bus operators?
>>
>> TUPEing all the staff to become public employees would create an
>> organisation too big to manage on a day to day basis.
>>
>> Also running Control as a merged operation would be a nightmare, as
>> we've seen with "too big" GTR, and historically an allegedly "too big"
>> Central Trains (followed by a "too big EMT") as discussed in another
>> thread.
>>
>> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
>> they said, is timetabling.
>
> I understood that Network Rail was already responsible for all
> compilation of the timetables; the hard part was agreeing with passenger
> & freight operators when their requests for train paths could actually
> be met.
>

Yes, but I think NR had to try to meet all their demands. Now, it will
presumably be able to restrict demand to the sensible practical capacity.

On 2022-02-18 16:06:37 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <sulerc$b33$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:14 on Thu, 17 Feb
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-02-17 11:25:05 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <sul7k2$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
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I was living in Cambridge at that time, and the service was frankly
>> terrible. It was frequently late, and at the time it was the only
>> direct connection between there and Stansted Airport, but it was so
>> frequently cancelled, that it may as well not have been provided at all.
>
> I'm still of the opinion that those cancellations are systemic to the
> pathing (even absent any Cambridge-Stansted GA shuttles), and not
> something a change of TOC would change.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Would it? It would bring Stansted and Ely on, that's it.
>
> GA had (have) crew familiar with Peterborough-Ely as well.

Familiar, yes, having facilities for crew rest or sign on/off, no.
Peterborough was an ICEC station at the time.

>> Cambridge and Peterborough are operated by other TOCs
>
> Cambridge is operated by GA!

Was that the case in 2007? My recollection is that the station went to
FCC when WAGN was split.

> As result of the introduction of XC, there are now five TOCs at PBO:
> LNER, GN/Thameslink, EMT/EMR, GA and XC; and four at Ely: GN, GA,
> EMT/EMR and XC.
>
> Before the Birmingham services were lost, crew changes were possible at
> Ely between the two routes to beyond PBO, which must have helped with
> rostering. They may have also changed crews at PBO too.
>
>> and the other stations have no meaningful facilities.
>
> I'm pretty sure Ely has crew facilities.

If you followed what I wrote, I was refering to stations other than
Stansted and Ely.

>> There's also the issue that the only diesel depot on Anglia is Crown
>> Point in Norwich, which is not particularly conveniently located for
>> serving this route.
>
> And where is XC's diesel depot. Don't tell me it's in Birmingham,
> because that would be even less convenient. I suspect they took over
> facilities from Central at Cambridge, as could GA have done.

Tysely (Birmingham) was the depot that served the route in Central
days, and at least it's on the line rather than being a whole long
distance away from it in Norwich.

>>>> 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!
>>
>> See above. Anglia started serving that route in 2012.
>
> They were serving all the way to the junction 2.5miles away from the
> airport, and then to Bishops Stortford etc. That must help!

Only after the Greater Anglia frahncise was let to "one", before that
it was a WAGN route. That brings up another point. Greater Anglial
and GN (FCC) were re-let as franchises in early 2006. Central and XC
were both re-let in late 2007. Transferign the Stansted-Brum route to
"one" would have meant messing about with a franchise mid-cycle, while
letting it to XC was syncronised with the expiry and re-letting of both
Central and XC franchises.

>> The Stansted-Brum route was transfered to XC in 2007.
>>
>>> 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!
>>
>> So you agree it is successfully run by XC. No problem, then.
>
> The point being that if they can run it despite the "out of area"
> logistical challenges, so could GA with half of such challenges.

That's a "yes" then.

>>> 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 split when Central ceased to exist, which is what led to the
>> transfer to XC.
>
> Attic raided, and as I suspected the service was split before then.
>
> On 23rd May 2004. (Immediately previous timetable has the through service).
>
> Until 26th Sept 2004, the network diagram on the front page of the
> pocket timetable was unchanged, but then they released a new one with
> the disjoint clearly shown.
>
> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Central-Citylink-2004.jpg

Thanks for digging this up. I am quite certain the service was
advertised as a through Stansted-Birmingham-Liverpool service at least
as late as autumn 2002, but I lost track of exactly when the two halves
were split. I had thought it lasted to the end of Central Trains, but
this suggests the split happened earlier.

> But this alteration, and any benefit from it (ie delays not cascading
> through) doesn't seem to have enabled them to keep the franchise at the
> end of 2007.
>
> In other news in the same box from the attic: a pre-"Simplification"
> MML fares leaflet with:
>
> Standard Open, Standard Plus Parking, Weekender, Saver, Offpeak Day Travelcard,
>
> And specified trains only outbound; 50% refunds available if you decide
> not to travel:
>
> Flexi Return, Super Advance, Apex, London Weekend,
>
> And specified trains only outbound; no refunds available:
>
> Capital, 2-Some, 4Sight, Senior.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If there were enough voyagers, it would be a suitable route for them.
>> Unfortunately there aren't, and something has to run the route.
>
> Also unfortunately, they didn't alter their marketing material to
> reflect this. And to some extent still haven't more than a decade later.

In message <suov18$86e$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:19:52 on Fri, 18 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
>>> they said, is timetabling.
>>
>> I understood that Network Rail was already responsible for all
>> compilation of the timetables; the hard part was agreeing with passenger
>> & freight operators when their requests for train paths could actually
>> be met.
>
>Yes, but I think NR had to try to meet all their demands. Now, it will
>presumably be able to restrict demand to the sensible practical capacity.

The "demand" for paths to run trains in are almost always baked into the
franchise contracts by the DfT, who issue a detailed specification of
the required frequency of operation.

AIUI "Meltdown Monday" was a result of Thameslink attempting to deliver
their long-term franchise commitment of increased services through the
core.

In theory, at least, an integrated approach to timetabling could allow
for a more frequent tuning of service pattern to demand (eg annually,
rather than every five or seven years rotating out of synch around the
various TOCs operating in the area).

<subthread convergence> It's my understanding for example that the
reason XC don't serve the new-ish Cambridge North station is because
"it's not in their franchise agreement". Whereas it would be quite handy
for commuters living in the Ely-Peterborough corridor working in the
Science Park (etc) who have uncomfortably few journey opportunities
especially in the rush hours.
--
Roland Perry

On 18/02/2022 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> In your opinion, would it be better or worse if there was just one
> "Control" in a central location. You'd have spare assets if just one
> region was affected, but you'd lose potentially invaluable local
> knowledge.

What often happens in other industries is there are two (or more) so if
one is out of action the other can take over the whole area. The
alternative is a reserve control at a different location that can be
quickly activated but that would be unacceptable for railways.

In message <suqa47$t8m$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:35:19 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 18/02/2022 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:

>> In your opinion, would it be better or worse if there was just one
>> "Control" in a central location. You'd have spare assets if just one
>> region was affected, but you'd lose potentially invaluable local
>> knowledge.
>
>What often happens in other industries is there are two (or more) so if
>one is out of action the other can take over the whole area. The
>alternative is a reserve control at a different location that can be
>quickly activated but that would be unacceptable for railways.

I wasn't expecting "affected" to convey a disaster recovery scenario,
where one control had been knocked out completely.

Rather than for example the knitting the ECML falling down (as it does)
resulting in lots of work rescheduling trains, and instead of just 'LNER
Control' having the whole workload, colleagues from 'GWR' (who in this
centralised situation would be sat at the next desk) could lend a hand
rather than drinking tea waiting for a bridge bash somewhere in the west
country to sort out.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>
> <subthread convergence> It's my understanding for example that the
> reason XC don't serve the new-ish Cambridge North station is because
> "it's not in their franchise agreement". Whereas it would be quite handy
> for commuters living in the Ely-Peterborough corridor working in the
> Science Park (etc) who have uncomfortably few journey opportunities
> especially in the rush hours.

They serve Worcestershire Parkway, which also didn't exist when their
franchise was let.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <suqdo0$3uj$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:37:04 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> <subthread convergence> It's my understanding for example that the
>> reason XC don't serve the new-ish Cambridge North station is because
>> "it's not in their franchise agreement". Whereas it would be quite handy
>> for commuters living in the Ely-Peterborough corridor working in the
>> Science Park (etc) who have uncomfortably few journey opportunities
>> especially in the rush hours.
>
>They serve Worcestershire Parkway, which also didn't exist when their
>franchise was let.

Was it predicted to exist - Cambridge North was always a bit of a
lottery when (or even if) it would be built. Alternatively they had
their arm twisted because it's an interchange, rather than just an
in-line station.

--
Roland Perry

On 19/02/2022 08:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suov18$86e$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:19:52 on Fri, 18 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> The one thing they *are* proposing to merge, if they really mean what
>>>> they said, is timetabling.
>>>
>>> I understood that Network Rail was already responsible for all
>>> compilation of the timetables; the hard part was agreeing with passenger
>>> & freight operators when their requests for train paths could actually
>>> be met.
>>
>> Yes, but I think NR had to try to meet all their demands. Now, it will
>> presumably be able to restrict demand to the sensible practical capacity.
>
> The "demand" for paths to run trains in are almost always baked into the
> franchise contracts by the DfT, who issue a detailed specification of
> the required frequency of operation.
>
> AIUI "Meltdown Monday" was a result of Thameslink attempting to deliver n
> core.
>
> In theory, at least, an integrated approach to timetabling could allow
> for a more frequent tuning of service pattern to demand (eg annually,
> rather than every five or seven years rotating out of synch around the
> various TOCs operating in the area).
>
> <subthread convergence> It's my understanding for example that the
> reason XC don't serve the new-ish Cambridge North station is because
> "it's not in their franchise agreement". Whereas it would be quite handy
> for commuters living in the Ely-Peterborough corridor working in the
> Science Park (etc) who have uncomfortably few journey opportunities
> especially in the rush hours.

It probably isn't in their franchise which would have to be modified to
allow them to stop there. Then a agreement would have to be made with
the operator of Cambridge North railway station, risk assessments would
needed, and XC would probably have to agree a new safety case with ORR.

It might be that NR cannot path a stopping diesel service amongst the
electric services. The service is unreliable enough as it is.

Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
franchise or responses can request it.