IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #225 on: December 25, 2012, 12:17:28 » |
|
I believe all radios have been fitted, so any further replacement Turbos will be due to the Traincrew issues following the flooding. Had the Class 180 situation not been so dire before the Christmas disruption, I don't think anyone would have bothered too much with a temporary (and to be honest, sensible) removal of them from the route over the past couple of days, but it does appear to be one excuse after another. I think, come the start of the new year, we will all be watching the Class 180 situation with interest, and it needs to improve greatly otherwise I can see it becoming a serious issue for FGW▸ 's credibility in the run up to a new delayed franchise. I'm assuming the seat reservation I have for the 27th will, at the appointed hour, vanish cinderella-like into the all too familiar no-arms train. If you let me know what train you're booked on I can let you know what is planned and what you'll get.
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
Andy W
|
|
« Reply #226 on: December 26, 2012, 13:20:18 » |
|
Had the Class 180 situation not been so dire before the Christmas disruption, I don't think anyone would have bothered too much with a temporary (and to be honest, sensible) removal of them from the route over the past couple of days, but it does appear to be one excuse after another.
Excellent analysis. A lot of problems arise from setting and managing expectations. It is 10 years since the expectation was set that the Cotswold line (long distance) would be free from Turbos with a mix of HSTs▸ / 180s. In the intervening period the 180 situation has meant that the "de-Turboisation" has never really fully materialised. People do accept the occaisional replacement but this has been happening far too long to have any credibility.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Andy W
|
|
« Reply #227 on: December 26, 2012, 13:28:23 » |
|
First chose to terminate the contract early to avoid paying ^800,000,000 that they bid to win the franchise so the franchise terminates in 3 months due to their actions
We are never going to agree on this one. In that case please demonstrate exactly what is incorrect in that statement.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #228 on: December 26, 2012, 13:55:16 » |
|
I can't copy over the section from the other thread, but in the other discussion you said:-
Hi SG you're probably correct in which case it never was a 10 year franchise in reality.
in response to an observation that First's Directors had a legal obligation to maximise value for their shareholders, so were effectively compelled to exercise the unilateral option available to them to terminate the franchise after 7 years. (Though now extended for a further three months, the terms of which are not clear.)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Andy W
|
|
« Reply #229 on: December 26, 2012, 14:18:39 » |
|
I can't copy over the section from the other thread, but in the other discussion you said:-
Hi SG you're probably correct in which case it never was a 10 year franchise in reality.
in response to an observation that First's Directors had a legal obligation to maximise value for their shareholders, so were effectively compelled to exercise the unilateral option available to them to terminate the franchise after 7 years. (Though now extended for a further three months, the terms of which are not clear.)
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHi John, It is a matter of FACT that First bid circa ^1,000,000,000 for a 10 year contract It is a matter of FACT that First exercised a (completely legal) option to unilaterally terminate the contract after 7 years It is a matter of FACT that First have only paid circa ^200,000,000 in franchise fees. It therefore follows that First have avoided paying ^800,000,000 in franchise fees that they bid to win the contract. It was therefore a de facto 7 year franchise. I will bet any money that no other bidder was evaluated as a 7 year franchise for a fee of ^200 Million. It is also true to say that the directors of First have a legal obligation to sharholder interests & termination was therefore the correct business decision. If you had fully quoted everything I have posted I have also laid the blame firmly at the DfT» . That being said once the shark has bitten off your leg do you jump in the pool for more or do you go swimming elsewhere?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #230 on: December 26, 2012, 14:32:51 » |
|
I can't copy over the section from the other thread, but in the other discussion you said:-
Hi SG you're probably correct in which case it never was a 10 year franchise in reality.
in response to an observation that First's Directors had a legal obligation to maximise value for their shareholders, so were effectively compelled to exercise the unilateral option available to them to terminate the franchise after 7 years. (Though now extended for a further three months, the terms of which are not clear.)
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIf you had fully quoted everything I have posted I have also laid the blame firmly at the DfT» . That being said once the shark has bitten off your leg do you jump in the pool for more or do you go swimming elsewhere? I think we're violently in agreement that the DfT is to blame. Re the shark analogy, the trouble is that the goverment have to adopt a completely fair policy in treating bidders, (unless they have good cause to do otherwise, which the First GW▸ franchise would not be, as First followed the rules). Much of the WCML▸ debacle appears to be because there was an ABB (Anyone but Branson) approach amongst civil servants, which ironically favoured the very same First that we're discussing here. Admittedly the Brown review hasn't explicitly said that an ABB view was behind the blatant flouting the rules set out, but it shows what can happen when bidders aren't treated equally.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #231 on: December 26, 2012, 14:59:16 » |
|
Flying into Gatwick, I booked an advanced train ticket home. The first option I looked at was 28 pounds to Melksham. But I opted for a bargain 8 pound ticket to Chippenham, and spent some of the money I had saved on catching the bus. It follows that I had avoided paying 20 pounds ... but I suggest that's simply me being prudent, and that any criticism of the scenario shoud be levelled at whoever set those fares up, and not at me for choosing the better value option.
See any parallel there?
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
thetrout
|
|
« Reply #232 on: December 26, 2012, 16:24:27 » |
|
Flying into Gatwick, I booked an advanced train ticket home. The first option I looked at was 28 pounds to Melksham. But I opted for a bargain 8 pound ticket to Chippenham, and spent some of the money I had saved on catching the bus. It follows that I had avoided paying 20 pounds ... but I suggest that's simply me being prudent, and that any criticism of the scenario shoud be levelled at whoever set those fares up, and not at me for choosing the better value option.
See any parallel there?
Not to mention, You'd probably still have some of that ^20 left over even if you took a taxi!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Network SouthEast
|
|
« Reply #233 on: December 27, 2012, 00:27:31 » |
|
I note that II mentions that the 180s are having GSM-R▸ fitment. Is the fact they only had NRN▸ the reason for them not operating DOO▸ -P?
One of the things the rulebook says if a train does not have access to CSR▸ or GSM-R then it cannot run DOO-P, so now that they have GSM-R is there any other reason why they need a guard between Paddington and Oxford?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #234 on: December 27, 2012, 07:30:58 » |
|
I'm assuming the seat reservation I have for the 27th will, at the appointed hour, vanish cinderella-like into the all too familiar no-arms train. I hope you're not booked on too early a train - as the whole train may have disappeared or be running only as far as Reading or Slough: Owing to over-running engineering works between Reading and London Paddington all lines are blocked. Impact: Train services running through these stations may be cancelled or delayed at short notice. An estimate for the resumption of normal services will be provided as soon as the problem has been fully assessed. Customer Advice: Train services are suspended between London Paddington and Reading in both directions until at least 09:00. Some trains may operate between Slough and Reading and very limited road transport has been sourced to operate between Reading and London Paddington. Customers are advised NOT TO TRAVEL unless your journey is essential. South West Trains services are conveying passengers between Reading and London Waterloo in both directions until further notice. Arrangements have been made for First Great Western rail tickets to be accepted for these journeys. London Underground services are conveying passengers via any reasonable route until further notice. Chiltern Railways services are conveying passengers via any reasonable route until further notice. Arrangements have been made for First Great Western rail tickets to be accepted for these journeys. Occasional problems / schedule changes are inevitable but the last week we've had - Major Signalling problem out from Paddington - Floods cutting off lines - Shutdowns on Christmas day and Boxing Day - Overrunning engineering works and at times it seems like we're back in the days where a train journey was an adventure.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
Andy W
|
|
« Reply #235 on: December 27, 2012, 09:07:18 » |
|
Flying into Gatwick, I booked an advanced train ticket home. The first option I looked at was 28 pounds to Melksham. But I opted for a bargain 8 pound ticket to Chippenham, and spent some of the money I had saved on catching the bus. It follows that I had avoided paying 20 pounds ... but I suggest that's simply me being prudent, and that any criticism of the scenario shoud be levelled at whoever set those fares up, and not at me for choosing the better value option.
See any parallel there?
Not really Grahame = did you bid 28 for the seat and then change your mind after starting the journey? Were others also bidding for the seat and were prevented from travelling because you bid the 28 to start with? If I get a train from Melksham to Paddington and jump out at Slough to I get an 80℅ refund?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #236 on: December 27, 2012, 09:26:23 » |
|
I note that II mentions that the 180s are having GSM-R▸ fitment. Is the fact they only had NRN▸ the reason for them not operating DOO▸ -P?
One of the things the rulebook says if a train does not have access to CSR▸ or GSM-R then it cannot run DOO-P, so now that they have GSM-R is there any other reason why they need a guard between Paddington and Oxford?
The cab isn't really set up for driver only operation - the view isn't great and stations with 'look back' dispatch, where the driver literally looks back, would prohibit DOO-P use on them. Though in terms of door controls, the driver has got buttons for everything they would need, unlike in a HST▸ for example.
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #237 on: December 27, 2012, 13:53:36 » |
|
The DOO▸ platform equipment aliment is set for 165/6 use and as II said the 180's the cab layout is not suited to DOO. The next generation of DOO trains need to go the same way as the Tube with in cab screens
As a note the CSR▸ (Cab Secure Radio) is being phased out for a couple of reasons; it is old technology mid 1980's, uses the old TV (405line) band III / IV channels, more importantly this spectrum in the ITU allocation is still allocated to broadcast and not PMR and is going to be used in the Netherlands and the other low countries for new TV and radio channels.
GSM-R▸ is already a dated system questions are already being asked as to its capacity for ETRMS
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
paulo999
|
|
« Reply #238 on: December 27, 2012, 14:33:46 » |
|
Today's 16:29 from Honeybourne, as predicted:
"Will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8 This is due to over-running engineering works Information correct at 27 Dec 2012 09:04"
So, it's an unbroken record. Still never seen anything other than Turbo's in three years of weekend / christmas travel.
I wonder how many Adelentes will be sat at Old Oak Common?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #239 on: December 27, 2012, 14:48:02 » |
|
Today's 16:29 from Honeybourne, as predicted:
"Will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8 This is due to over-running engineering works Information correct at 27 Dec 2012 09:04"
Yeah .. I wondered if you were planning to be on that one. Booked HST▸ couldn't get out of Paddington due to overrunning engineering works; outbound train started at Oxford and it looks like they only had 3 coaches of turbo available. Hope you have a good journey!
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
|