On 19/02/2022 09:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> 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.

XC are the only operator on that route so there was no alternative.

In message <suqfit$80e$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:08:28 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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

indeed.

>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,

That's GA, and there's no commercial conflict of interest really. In
fact I'm pretty sure they'd welcome the extra footfall, in between the
tumbleweed.

>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.

It's not that busy a line. There's 2tph electrics and 1tph Basils plus
the XC.

>Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>franchise

What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
portfolio.

>or responses can request it.

--
Roland Perry

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

>
>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>> franchise
>
> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
> portfolio.

New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
contract has been extended to 2027:
<https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contract-extended-2027/>

On 19/02/2022 08:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> I wasn't expecting "affected" to convey a disaster recovery scenario,
> where one control had been knocked out completely.

That is an important part of the planning. My company's 'control' was at
one location and they had a reserve on a few tens of miles away at
another site and I think there was a plan where they took backup tapes
or discs to the other one in the event of a failure (that was some years
ago). I thought that was normal in most organisations.

Also has been practiced frequently.

In message <suqkv5$fgp$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:40:22 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 19/02/2022 08:56, Roland Perry wrote:

>> I wasn't expecting "affected" to convey a disaster recovery scenario,
>> where one control had been knocked out completely.
>
>That is an important part of the planning. My company's 'control' was
>at one location and they had a reserve on a few tens of miles away at
>another site and I think there was a plan where they took backup tapes
>or discs to the other one in the event of a failure (that was some
>years ago). I thought that was normal in most organisations.
>
>Also has been practiced frequently.

Yes, that could be needed *too*, but wasn't the reason I suggested that
a centralised one might work better with load-sharing on days it wasn't
out of action.

ps I note Network Rail doesn't run alternative facilities in case its
signalling centres are knocked completely out of action.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>> franchise
>>
>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>> portfolio.
>
>New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>contract has been extended to 2027:
><https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>act-extended-2027/>

Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/02/2022 12:47, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>> franchise
>>>
>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>> portfolio.
>>
>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>> act-extended-2027/>
>
> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.

XC are very unpopular around here so there'll be a lot of complaints if
Arriva retain control without competition.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>> franchise
>>>
>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>> portfolio.
>>
>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>> act-extended-2027/>
>
> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.

The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.

In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>> franchise
>>>>
>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>> portfolio.
>>>
>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>
>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>
>The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.

That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>
>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>
>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>
>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>
>>The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>
>That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.

Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the
wafer-thin profit margin on offer.

In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>
>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>
>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>
>>>The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>
>>That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>
>Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>margin on offer.

Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
and then being frozen for five years.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>
>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>
>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>
>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>> margin on offer.
>
> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
> and then being frozen for five years.

I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
decision.

In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>>
>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>
>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>> margin on offer.
>>
>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>> and then being frozen for five years.
>
>I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>decision.

There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.

After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers. If the CEO disagrees with
the rest of the board, and feels excessively hassled himself, then he
can always get a job with someone else.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>
>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>> margin on offer.
>>>
>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>
>>I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>decision.
>
>There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>
>After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.

The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low margin, low growth businesses. Their stock price rises
when they disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a distraction.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>>> margin on offer.
>>>>
>>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>>
>>> I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>> running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>> decision.
>>
>> There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>> economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>>
>> After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>> hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.
>
> The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low margin,
> low growth businesses. Their stock price rises
> when they disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a distraction.
>

We’ve had the swashbuckling private companies, then the overseas national
operators (presumably having got bored with trying to run their own
railways). We got another one in the naughty corner for fiddling their
finances. The concessions are going to have to be written a way that
operators can make decent money, whilst simultaneously appearing not to be
so doing for public perceptions. And the operators of the commuter railways
are going to have to take flak from both passengers and unions as they are
forced to slim down services and costs.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 18:21:32 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>>>> margin on offer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>>>
>>>> I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>>> running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>>> decision.
>>>
>>> There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>>> economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>>>
>>> After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>>> hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.
>>
>> The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low margin,
>> low growth businesses. Their stock price rises
>> when they disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a distraction.
>>
>
>We’ve had the swashbuckling private companies, then the overseas national
>operators (presumably having got bored with trying to run their own
>railways). We got another one in the naughty corner for fiddling their
>finances. The concessions are going to have to be written a way that
>operators can make decent money, whilst simultaneously appearing not to be
>so doing for public perceptions. And the operators of the commuter railways
>are going to have to take flak from both passengers and unions as they are
>forced to slim down services and costs.

Yes, so a very high risk of reputational damage.

On 19/02/2022 18:21, Tweed wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example, another Arriva
>>>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>>>> margin on offer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>>>
>>>> I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>>> running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>>> decision.
>>>
>>> There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>>> economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>>>
>>> After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>>> hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.
>>
>> The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low margin,
>> low growth businesses. Their stock price rises
>> when they disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a distraction.
>>
>
> We’ve had the swashbuckling private companies, then the overseas national
> operators (presumably having got bored with trying to run their own
> railways). We got another one in the naughty corner for fiddling their
> finances. The concessions are going to have to be written a way that
> operators can make decent money, whilst simultaneously appearing not to be
> so doing for public perceptions. And the operators of the commuter railways
> are going to have to take flak from both passengers and unions as they are
> forced to slim down services and costs.
>
The ToCs have been taking the flak for government decisions for years.
I guess their contracts must have some non-disclosure clause for years.

Having been a civil servant for most of my working life I'm quite aware
that much of the secrecy is unnecessary.

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

While that seems a good idea in theory, there's a lot to be said for local
knowledge - eg our controllers in Swindon know which depots sign which
routes, and the Resource Managers (ie traincrew controllers) to a large
extent know the names of all their crews, and who to ask first when they
need favours vs. who will do things by the book.

I think there's also a lot of goodwill gained by having the control centre
'in region' at Swindon, rather than faceless voices in Milton Keynes or
Crewe who you'll never meet.

(Yes I know it's unlikely that Penzance crews will meet them either, but
some of the controllers from Swindon come to Bristol traincrew Christmas
parties, for example, and currently six of them are former Bristol
traincrew, and in the opposite direction four Bristol traincrew used to be
in Swindon control!)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <hka21h5alplvkp0j0u9la8ik44un93nva9@4ax.com>, at 17:38:45 on
Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example,
>>>>>>>>>another Arriva
>>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>>> margin on offer.
>>>>
>>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>>
>>>I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>>running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>>decision.
>>
>>There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>>economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>>
>>After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>>hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.
>
>The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low
>margin, low growth businesses. Their stock price rises when they
>disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a
>distraction.

That's not the only metric which matters.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sup0iq$58p$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:46:18 on Fri, 18 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>>>>> XC have no company structure to manage railway stations so
>>>>>>>>>>> transferring a few railway stations to them is a sensible
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.

I'd be astonished if the GA crew at Peterborough had to use the public
toilets (and last time I was there just before Xmas most were out of
action). Similarly there are crew rest facilities at Ely which actually
*belong* to GA, but I've seen crews from other TOCs using them.

>>> 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.

If it went to FCC (which I don't recollect) why would it not have stayed
with GN/GTR when they inherited that franchise?

The franchise churn at Cambridge has been considerable, but here's my
best attempt at a summary of the London-facing services (Whatever Anglia
and that bit of Central was called that week, were also running on
routes from Norwich, Kings Lynn, Ipswich, Liverpool and sporadically
Stansted):

WAGN (both the Liverpool St and Kings Cross flows) 1997-2004
WAGN (just Kings Cross flow) 2004-2006

From 2000 WAGN had been part of National Express.

Greater Anglia (part of NatEx) (just Liverpool St flow) 2004-2006

....rebranded One (remaining NatEx) (just Liverpool St) 2006-2008
....rebranded as NXEA 2008-2012

NatEx sacked, Dutch arrive, rebrand as Greater Anglia 2012-

meanwhile:

FCC (just Kings Cross flow) 2006-2014
GN/GTR (just Kings Cross, Later adding Thameslink, flow) 2014-

As you can see, the flow-split preceded the transfer of WAGN's
Kings Cross services to FCC by two years. Even if WAGN limped on for
those two years running Cambridge station (rather than it being handed
to GA in 2004), it's virtually certain to have been in the GA/NatEx
family from 2006.

>> 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.

Crew facilities are not needed at places like March (which is the only
non-halt station left to discuss).

>>> 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,

How did they get units to Stansted/Cambridge for the early morning
services, or back late at night? The answer is "they didn't", because
they also had the depot in Cambridge.

>and at least it's on the line rather than being a whole long distance
>away from it in Norwich.

And yet XC use Coldhams Lane to be a significant depot at Cambridge.
Anyone else (including GA) could have done the same.

>>>>> 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.

As you can see from my timeline above, you are glossing over the changes
at Cambridge in 2004. And yes, there was "messing about" happening every
two years.

In any event the Cambridge-Liverpool Street crews would have been TUPEd
over from WAGN to GA(2004), in 2004, so the familiarity to the route
went way back.

>>> 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!

On 20/02/2022 01:25, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> While that seems a good idea in theory, there's a lot to be said for local
> knowledge - eg our controllers in Swindon know which depots sign which
> routes, and the Resource Managers (ie traincrew controllers) to a large
> extent know the names of all their crews, and who to ask first when they
> need favours vs. who will do things by the book.

Other industries seem to believe that there is no need for local
knowledge and that it can all be learnt by a computer system. Perhaps
debatable but there is no doubt that it is useful to be able to use
people from another area.

We were told at my work that the system would "learn" using Artificial
Intelligence. In practice we saw little evidence of "intellgence"!

In message <sus5aj$fgn$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:25:39 on Sun, 20 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suqa47$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.
>
>While that seems a good idea in theory, there's a lot to be said for local
>knowledge - eg our controllers in Swindon know which depots sign which
>routes, and the Resource Managers (ie traincrew controllers) to a large
>extent know the names of all their crews, and who to ask first when they
>need favours vs. who will do things by the book.
>
>I think there's also a lot of goodwill gained by having the control centre
>'in region' at Swindon, rather than faceless voices in Milton Keynes or
>Crewe who you'll never meet.

You are a teleworking sceptic, AICMFP.

I'm one too, by the way.

>(Yes I know it's unlikely that Penzance crews will meet them either, but
>some of the controllers from Swindon come to Bristol traincrew Christmas
>parties, for example, and currently six of them are former Bristol
>traincrew, and in the opposite direction four Bristol traincrew used to be
>in Swindon control!)

When I was in an industry with perhaps 5,000 significant employees
worldwide cross-border teleworking every day, it was essential to
arrange enough big conferences where most of them could cross paths at
least once a quarter, with sufficient of the others.

My job was to try to help theme the conferences, bind the conference
*organisers* together, and make the events run smoothly and productively
enough the attendees would come back. Anything up to three or four a
month.

While it was never a particular target of mine, at least one of the
organisers offered a medal for people who had been to I think thirty
consecutively (that would be 2000-2009), and I had dropped out by the
forty's, they are up to 72 meetings now.

That's how you get to numbering like COP26, being only annual (and only
some of them hitting the headlines).

As far as I can see the current record holder is LINX 115 (virtual, next
Tuesday) closely followed by IETF 113 (in person, Vienna, mid-March)
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 06:30:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <hka21h5alplvkp0j0u9la8ik44un93nva9@4ax.com>, at 17:38:45 on
>Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example,
>>>>>>>>>>another Arriva
>>>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-railways-contr
>>>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management contract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>>>> margin on offer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>>>
>>>>I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>>>running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>>>decision.
>>>
>>>There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>>>economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>>>
>>>After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>>>hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.
>>
>>The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low
>>margin, low growth businesses. Their stock price rises when they
>>disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a
>>distraction.
>
>That's not the only metric which matters.

I take it you're not an investor. What metrics do you think the boards of public companies care about?

In message <06h41hh8e2q3tbql6m842f6ej03stfqb35@4ax.com>, at 13:41:48 on
Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 06:30:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <hka21h5alplvkp0j0u9la8ik44un93nva9@4ax.com>, at 17:38:45 on
>>Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>>>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example,
>>>>>>>>>>>another Arriva
>>>>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>><https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-rail
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management
>>>>>>>>>>contract.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>>>>> margin on offer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>>>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>>>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>>>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>>>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>>>>running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>>>>decision.
>>>>
>>>>There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>>>>economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>>>>
>>>>After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>>>>hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.
>>>
>>>The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low
>>>margin, low growth businesses. Their stock price rises when they
>>>disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a
>>>distraction.
>>
>>That's not the only metric which matters.
>
>I take it you're not an investor. What metrics do you think the boards
>of public companies care about?

More than just the stock price.

ps Not all TOCs are that kind of public companies.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:16:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <06h41hh8e2q3tbql6m842f6ej03stfqb35@4ax.com>, at 13:41:48 on
>Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 06:30:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <hka21h5alplvkp0j0u9la8ik44un93nva9@4ax.com>, at 17:38:45 on
>>>Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:10:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <sur0bi$r3h$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:42 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <1iu11h5ftbl2fk1gacld45pd41uaav9t8l@4ax.com>, at 14:11:31 on
>>>>>>> Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:55:37 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <suqqa2$vos$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:30 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <suqkc7$7gd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:30:15 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully stops will be included in the consultation for the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> franchise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new franchise, surely OLR/Fat-Controller will have it in their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> portfolio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> New-style franchises continue to be awarded. For example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>another Arriva
>>>>>>>>>>>> contract has been extended to 2027:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/130492/chiltern-rail
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> act-extended-2027/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chiltern has always been a bit odd. Let's see what happens to XC next
>>>>>>>>>>> year, and whether it gets a classic franchise or a management
>>>>>>>>>>>contract.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The latter, if at all. Classic franchises ended in 2020.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's what I thought. So no new franchise for XC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like Chiltern, it could well get an extension of the current
>>>>>>>> arrangement. Basically, it just has to sign up to the wafer-thin profit
>>>>>>>> margin on offer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or it could decide to hand back the keys, if the profit margin really
>>>>>>> isn't worth it. But that's disjoint from a "new franchise/contract/
>>>>>>> arrangement" resulting in a new service pattern (such as commencing a
>>>>>>> station stop at North Cambridge) as a result of passenger consultations,
>>>>>>> and then being frozen for five years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have been left wondering why any company bothers with all the hassle of
>>>>>>running a TOC. National Express appear to have made the most rational
>>>>>>decision.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are many benefits to a corporation in simply being bigger,
>>>>>economies of scale, public financial markets perception, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>>After all, if you are making an extra profit (however slim) most of the
>>>>>hassle is on the shoulders of middle managers.
>>>>
>>>>The stock market penalises companies for getting involved in low
>>>>margin, low growth businesses. Their stock price rises when they
>>>>disengage from such activities, which are seen as no more than a
>>>>distraction.
>>>
>>>That's not the only metric which matters.
>>
>>I take it you're not an investor. What metrics do you think the boards
>>of public companies care about?
>
>More than just the stock price.
>
>ps Not all TOCs are that kind of public companies.

Yes, that's true. Public stock (ie, private) companies have mostly lost interest in operating UK railways. Increasingly,
they're operated by foreign public sector railways.