|
Timmer
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2011, 19:24:10 » |
|
at the time didnt fgw have the 180's
Yes they did and the plan was to replace them with the extra HSTs▸ that First had purchased which they did saving on the leasing costs of the 180s. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2011, 20:55:29 » |
|
Duh, I think we knew that!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2011, 21:12:47 » |
|
Duh, I think we knew that!
I was just answering the question. No need to get funny about it. Always remember that not everyone who visits this or any other forum may have the same knowledge on a particular topic as yourself. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 21:26:01 by Timmer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2011, 22:03:08 » |
|
Gentlemen, please.  This is clearly a very emotive subject, potentially affecting most (if not all) of our members, directly or indirectly. The sharing of any relevant information here on this forum is surely in all our interests, if it helps to progress this debate in a constructive manner? Chris.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2011, 00:04:28 » |
|
Duh, I think we knew that!
I was just answering the question. No need to get funny about it. Always remember that not everyone who visits this or any other forum may have the same knowledge on a particular topic as yourself. thanks for the reply mate, i don't think he understood why i made that statement, in fairness i should have said what i was thinking instead of disguising a riddle as a question  the hst's would never be a reason for first hanging onto the franchise lets face it they could no doubt make just as much if not more from leasing them to a new toc, if a new operator wants the tender then they have to pay for the 180's OR hst's from first, presumably if the toc wanted to purchase more stock they could to cut down on leasing costs in the same way that first did..... so why would this be an issue... ever??? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2011, 04:18:58 » |
|
Back in December 2005 when First won the Greater Western franchise, I was told by a railway journalist that the amount of cash involved in the final 3 years (extension) just WASN'T likely to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phil
|
|
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2011, 06:20:10 » |
|
Duh, I think we knew that!
Actually I genuinely didn't know that. So, thanks Timmer. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
qwerty
|
|
« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2011, 16:49:39 » |
|
It seems the DfT» would want First to not to take the franchise extension as then they could re-tender it with a lower (cheaper) service franchise commitment. With the country in dire straits, why would the DfT want less in way of a franchise payment? I'm sure they're hoping exactly the opposite - that FGW▸ continue to 2016 and get the near-^1billion in franchise payments due in those three years. Because they don't ever expect they'll get the money. There are some expensive service commitments burried in the current franchise which if removed would make a cheaper to operate franchise for anyone who won it. As a nation we are in a retrenchment, The Greater Western franchise is not immune from it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2011, 09:58:13 » |
|
Eh? Like what for example?
The franchise is a public domument on the web. Can you point to which pages you refer to?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
qwerty
|
|
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2011, 11:40:54 » |
|
Eh? Like what for example?
The franchise is a public domument on the web. Can you point to which pages you refer to?
Ye Gods! The existing franchise specification lays down the minimum service frequencies, earliest trains, last trains, places which have through services to London etc, etc. All of which can be eroded if you want to reduce costs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #56 on: March 17, 2011, 11:46:42 » |
|
Oh, there's no way the DfT» wouldn't specify those - or be allowed not to!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
qwerty
|
|
« Reply #57 on: March 17, 2011, 13:07:46 » |
|
Oh, there's no way the DfT» wouldn't specify those - or be allowed not to!
Why do you say that?? I supect the present regime are all about slaughtering sacred cows. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #58 on: March 17, 2011, 13:44:51 » |
|
Because User Groups, County Councils etc etc would immediately see this as the thin end of the wedge for late-night services, early morning services and any that don't make a profit!
And Melksham wouldn't get a service at all.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2011, 14:00:00 » |
|
The new policy is in Chapter 5 of this: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/2010-28/govresponse.pdfRevised Government policy
5.4 We propose to significantly simplify train service specifications, so that bidders are given greater flexibility in how they develop the service offered to passengers. However, we also recognise that on some routes (and at marginal times of day), train services would not operate unless they were specified, and subsidised. The Government therefore needs to balance operator flexibility with the requirement to protect a core level of service for passengers. Given this, the level and method of train service specification will differ by route and by franchise.
5.5 In general, we would expect to specify first and last trains, by day of week and specify an off-peak level of service, although the level will vary by route. On a commuter franchise, this level of service specification will be supplemented by a requirement for the operator to satisfy a crowding metric. This metric will ensure that peak services above and beyond the off-peak requirement are operated, and are designed to use the resources sensibly. It will also encourage operators to develop initiatives that encourage passengers to travel in periods of lower demand.
5.6 For non-commuter services, a peak requirement, framed at a high level, may be necessary. This will be applied on a case by case basis.
etc, etc...
Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
