Search results

All the above debate highlights the importance of fundamental reform. There are too many holes that means the sole reason these companies exist, to provide the passenger services they are obliged to, gets demoted as one element of an operating contract.

Caught out by the P-coding nonsense today. LNER train completely removed from the timetable before all the chaos today. No information from LNER to inform it had been cancelled and didn't show up on the boards at KGX as cancelled. Not customer focused at all.

That's not quite true as the 5.27 connects into a Nottingham train which starts at Kettering, not direct but the option is there. I find the point about the value of the MML early / late services interesting. If they really have such little value, why have operator after operator been...

Really the spare 802s out West should be sent to LNER to ditch the 91s and be replaced with other DMUs. 175s perhaps. But a separate point is within this idea, is it in the Government's interest that GC are incentivised to move to an 80X based train to improve overall performance on the ECML...

If you scan through RTT, the Nottingham to Birmingham services disappear w/c 03/04/23 so perhaps it's a loading issue? Edit: just noticed the ECS moves to Tyseley which must have been deliberately added so who knows!

That's true, but if there is no money to bring the services in the next 5* years, it doesn't make sense to offer half a product for that length of time. Not necessarily the fault of SE, but an issue over funding certainty which is absent beyond a year by year hand to mouth agreement. *Clearly...

Indeed, a case where an upfront investment could save significant operational costs.

They do end up on the Readings from time to time, always worth a check of RTT particularly at weekends when other routes are closed.

I was musing about this. ORR are more than happy to lambast NR on all sorts of issuess yet the operators, as they report to DfT, seem to be left alone. I did also wonder if there is a case for the ORR to explore regarding the DfT/Government's compliance with their own franchising regulations.

A happy coincidence for us Teessiders and those further along the line, but I was baffled that this happened with the increase in resources just as the rest of the industry is being battered to reduce costs. My understanding (could be wrong so do correct) is that the issue was driven by the...

I think the congestion has moved but one of the benefits is it is easier for arriving passengers to find a clear path from the platforms to the tube with the new screen position. When the original screens were on it was like dodgems trying to get through. That said I doubt any conclusions can be...

Indeed, this is a long standing issue with Virgin let alone Avanti. Weekends have always been an issue too for advance availability. Much better to adopt the LNER practice and release tickets at risk for a reasonable number of trains than just block the whole lot out.

Agreed, 100%. Let's see and prove how elastic the commuter market is, it's a snip in the scheme of things and is exactly what we should be doing whilst the peak fare income remains suppressed and therefore is the cheapest time we will ever have to do things like this.

Agreed, if the at seat service was reliable then of course I'd prefer it, but it isn't on GWR. Of the last 4 long distance journeys I have made I've seen the trolley once. GUT will be a differentiator for passengers in that regard.

Agree. The contracted operators are stuck in stasis, or even decline, but markets like these are there for the taking. I think this is a good outcome and eventually the market for both operators will be larger as a result.

It does make sense if looking only at GWR's balance sheet, but if the Bristol Fasts are not returning then fundamentally GWR have too many 80X units whilst LNER, for example, have too few (hence 225s).

Is there any view yet if this is permanent or interim i.e until more DMUs come off lease? Just seems to be an incredibly inefficient use of expensive 80X considering industry finances.

I agree - the impact on interchange will be interesting - but I don't think that will take place at Lewisham. Swapping between Charing Cross and Cannon Street services will be easier and probably quicker with higher frequencies at London Bridge. I would assume it's the Victorias that drive up...

I floated an idea in a previous thread, but might as well bring it up again here. Bearing in mind the cost issue which isn't going to go away, I wondered about bringing in the 221s from Avanti, but ditching/scrapping 2 of the end cars from each of the 220s and reforming those as 17 6-car sets...

Indeed, revenue isn't the only measure of the railway's success - though I appreciate it is the main one at the moment. We shouldn't lose sight of that. Focusing only on revenue is the reason why the schemes coming forward now as Restoring Your Railways never got anywhere previously. The other...