Go-Op developments...

[VTPreston_Tez]

^I'm in.

 

[Wath Yard]

I think a closer model is the Cambridge to Norwich service started by Anglia Railways using 170's. There were already services on the route, but you needed to change at Ely on virtually all of them. Introducing new direct hourly trains created a market. Having said that, I still wouldn't wish to put money into GO-OP.

Although I'm not from that part of the country I've used that service quite a few times and it does seem to be very well used. However does it make a profit? That doesn't matter if the DfT are prepared to subsidise it or it attracts local government support but it would matter if it was an open access operation.

 

[465fan]

I would be happy to add £1!

 

[Muzer]

I'm in for the £1 idea.


(though I doubt I'd ever use the service, unless there's a particularly good reason to go Andover --> Salisbury (--> Westbury) --> Oxford instead of Andover --> Basingstoke --> Oxford - and I don't need to go to Ludgershall. Only chance is if they somehow manage to extend the Andover --> Ludgershall line to Amesbury, which I doubt... but even if I never use it, that's besides the point, it'd be lovely to see it succeed)

 

[BestWestern]

Oh dear oh dear

Next week, Goco loco coco or whatever unveil their plans for Melksham International Space Centre and their hourly shuttle service to Mars :roll:

The only new rolling stock this lot are ever likely to get their hands on would be made of plastic and embossed with 'Hornby' underneath. As with the recent stories about local councils wanting to take charge of the railways, here we have another tiny organisation who mean very well but in reality have little grasp of just how complex and enormously costly running a TOC is. The very idea that whilst the nation's major railway operators are desperate for rolling stock, some local co-operative will just casually go out and acquire a fleet of brand new trains, is utterly laughable. How much do they think their desired fleet will cost them to lease each month? Plus track access, staff salaries, appropriate budgets for delay attribution and so on, insurance, fuel and an endless myriad of other operational costs. They'll be bankrupt before they've run their first train. And then at the extreme other end of the scale, we have talk of a Class 141, are they serious?! That's quite some confused rolling stock policy I'd say! Even getting a 141 re certified for mainline use would cost them a phenomenal sum of money, not to mention the ongoing costs of keeping the thing in a vaguely serviceable state.

How will they source their staff? I very much doubt there will be a great many people queuing up to leave the security and high pay rates of the franchised TOCs for a 'career' with this lot, so where will their crews come from? It takes around a year to train a new Driver, and three or four months for a Guard. Are they going to begin recruitment a year or so before they intend to start running any trains? How will they pay their trainees during this initial period with no services and no income? Who will carry out that training? Do they have any idea at all how much railway training costs? Or will they just recruit everybody who's ever been sacked from anywhere else in the same way that some low rent bus companies do, pay them peanuts and hope for the best?!

How and where will they carry out traction training and route learning, on what rolling stock and when? After their intended new fleet has been delivered, whilst it is costing huge sums of money but before they are running any services with it? Or are they hoping to 'borrow' somebody else's trains, or pay a fortune for a FOC or charter firm to do it all? Where will they stable, maintain, fuel and clean their trains? Again, at what cost?

Where will the company management and the essential operational experience come from? You don't just pick it up as you go along, and all the village hall meetings in the world won't make a group of amateurs competent in this arena. You need to know what you are doing, how it works and what is required. How will they fund even their initial paperwork, the applications and safety cases, and so on and so on. Where will they base and how will they fund their control centre? The list is endless.

I'm sorry, but we need less of this ridiculous intervention from do-gooders who all suddenly seem to think they need a chunk of the nation's railway network to play trains on. The existing TOCs may have their faults, and the current railway set-up might be much maligned, sometimes justifiably so, but at the very least it is run by professional companies who know what they are doing and have the funds and resources to do it reasonably well, on a daily basis. For heaven's sake let's keep it that way.

 

[bnm]

A commendable point of view BestWestern, and one to which I'm broadly in agreement.

Just the last line, "but at the very least it is run by professional companies who know what they are doing" that I'm not necessarily in agreement with!

 

[Eagle]

Hull Trains were backed by GBR.

Wrexham and Shropshire were backed by Laing (which became DBRUK before service started).

Grand Central were backed (initially) by Fraser Eagle.

Heathrow Express were backed by BAA (okay, no public transport experience but a hell of a lot of money).

Even GNWR/GNER are backed by Arriva.

Go-Op are backed by... nobody.

 

[BestWestern]

A commendable point of view BestWestern, and one to which I'm broadly in agreement.

Just the last line, "but at the very least it is run by professional companies who know what they are doing" that I'm not necessarily in agreement with!

I knew the comments would come...!!

I speak comparatively!

 

[bnm]

I speak comparatively!

Agreed. I'm more hopeful of the 'jam tomorrow' promises from existing operators/stakeholders than from potential OA operators.....

That said, enough work has been done in Wiltshire to prove the need for a better service through Melksham. I'd rather see that improved service come about through the franchise mechanism, concentrating on Swindon-Salisbury, rather than pie-in-the-sky ideas about Weymouth/Yeovil/Westbury-Birmingham.

Here's hoping the 'jam tomorrow' comes from the DfT....

 

[Jonny]

GO-OP seems, according to some posters, to be heading for the goop oops I meant the sticky stuff before it has run a single train at the rate some of the posters are claiming.

I wonder if the Co-Operative Bank would weigh in as a ROSCO, or maybe have a joint new stock order with Grand Central / Hull Trains.

 

[IanXC]

A commendable point of view BestWestern, and one to which I'm broadly in agreement.

Just the last line, "but at the very least it is run by professional companies who know what they are doing" that I'm not necessarily in agreement with!

I don't think theres much doubt that the TOCs know exactly what they're doing, its just that we don't necessarily agree.

GO-OP seems, according to some posters, to be heading for the goop oops I meant the sticky stuff before it has run a single train at the rate some of the posters are claiming.

I wonder if the Co-Operative Bank would weigh in as a ROSCO, or maybe have a joint new stock order with Grand Central / Hull Trains.

The only new stock Grand Central or Hull Trains are likely to order is EMU stock.

 

[BestWestern]

GO-OP seems, according to some posters, to be heading for the goop oops I meant the sticky stuff before it has run a single train at the rate some of the posters are claiming.

I wonder if the Co-Operative Bank would weigh in as a ROSCO, or maybe have a joint new stock order with Grand Central / Hull Trains.

I'm afraid that does seem the likely outcome of their venture.

I'm no expert on financial institutions, but I wouldn't have had the Co-op down as a player in the rail industry, as far as I'm aware it tends only to be the big boys who play that particular game.

 

[Eagle]

I wonder if the Co-Operative Bank would weigh in as a ROSCO, or maybe have a joint new stock order with Grand Central / Hull Trains.

Go-Op has no connection with The Co-Operative Group, other than the fact that both are cooperatives.

 

[anthony263]

Just seen this on their website:

http://go-op.coop/info/

 

[RobShipway]

I believe some of the same people that helped get Hull Trains and Grand Central going are either part of or working within Go-Op, so they do have experinced people onboard that know how to get a TOC up and running.

 

[Ivo]

A rather simple mathematical question.

If they want to offer two-hourly departures from 0600 to 2000, that is eight trains per day - the number they are committed to. So where do the extra "hourly departures during the peak" come in? That would be more than eight...

 

[Schnellzug]

I'm still LOLing, if not actually R on the FL, at the idea of Class 142s being a sensible idea for encouraging people to use a new service.

 

[sprinterguy]

And then at the extreme other end of the scale, we have talk of a Class 141, are they serious?! That's quite some confused rolling stock policy I'd say! Even getting a 141 re certified for mainline use would cost them a phenomenal sum of money, not to mention the ongoing costs of keeping the thing in a vaguely serviceable state.

They wouldn't have to get the 141 re-certified for main line use any more than the Parry People Mover they had plans on using would need to be certified for main line running: It would be operating within the limits of the Mid-Hants Railway. That's what the Mid Hants have suggested that they use in lieu of a PPM and for their "light rail" operation it seems no less sensible than the PPM and probably wouldn't be any worse in terms or ride quality on jointed track.

 

[wintonian]

Are they mad? Don't they realise we are far too affluent 14x stock here?

More seriously though I had become convinced that this had become a case of Go-come, Go-broke, Go-went.

And if go-compare can sue when there is little resemblance will the Co-operative?

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

 

[martinsh]

Does Class 50s hauling Mk IIs appeal to you? .

YES !!! Much better than anything else currently in service (except Chilterns silver trains) - though I am not sure there are sufficient numbers of class 50s available

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . if go-compare can sue when there is little resemblance will the Co-operative?

What's this?
Who has sued whom (and for how much)?

 

[wintonian]

What's this?
Who has sued whom (and for how much)?

Well ok no-one atualy has, but looking at the newsletter Gocompare.com at least were under the impression that they could.

 

[GNERman]

Just to note, great to note how interesting my thread is going, someone from GOOP said that CSRE were the preferred builder for the DMU stock...

Infact,this can be seen on their homepage...

Looks like a CSRE Pacesetter to me...

 

[martinsh]

Would it be stupid to suggest that 50 (or multiples thereof) of us put up £1 so that the forum as a whole can hold a share in GO-OP! as a company? We could then have a separate section for us to discuss GO-OP! matters which could then be put forward at (A)GMs...

Given it is only £1, I can see it working. What do you guys think?

(See here.)

I did seriously think about investing in Goop when they first started out, but since then have had to buy out my deceased partner's widow's share of my business. And now I'm promoting a concert by the Richie Furay Band !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpMicoVyNVQ (the things gorgeous redheads can talk me into !:roll

But I can afford £1 - heck I'll contribute £10 ! [ Just no beer for a couple of days I guess ]

PS - marvel at the guy on the left in the video

 

[GNERman]

If this gets serious, i'll contribute...

 

[BestWestern]

But I can afford £1 - heck I'll contribute £10 ! [ Just no beer for a couple of days I guess ]

You'd be better off buying 10 lottery tickets, more chance of success!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They wouldn't have to get the 141 re-certified for main line use any more than the Parry People Mover they had plans on using would need to be certified for main line running: It would be operating within the limits of the Mid-Hants Railway. That's what the Mid Hants have suggested that they use in lieu of a PPM and for their "light rail" operation it seems no less sensible than the PPM and probably wouldn't be any worse in terms or ride quality on jointed track.

Fair point, I suppose at the same time the Mid Hants could count it as a further addition to their preserved stock!

 

[Chris M]

Well ok no-one atualy has [sued anybody], but looking at the newsletter Gocompare.com at least were under the impression that they could.

The impression I got was that GoCompare objected only to "GoCo" not "Go-Coperative".

 

[martinsh]

You'd be better off buying 10 lottery tickets, more chance of success!

Playing the lottery is against my religion.

 

[TheJRB]

Electrify those two annoying bare patches (Uckfield and Marshlink) and you then have a nice number of Turbostars to play with (say a dozen three coach ones and four two coach ones, after swapping the middles around)...

...those could be used in several places (to free up stock for further cascades etc), it'd be a great catalyst.

Nice idea. But it's interesting that in this document I found on Network Rail, East Sussex County Council (for what it's worth) are actually requesting that any cascaded stock from electrification work taking place elsewhere are sent to the Uckfield and Marshlink lines:

6. Although it is recognised this is a high level strategy, and purposefully avoids detailed specification, we would like to take the opportunity to request that any diesel units arising from electrification of parts of the national network are prioritised for redeployment onto the Uckfield line and the Ashford-Hastings line. This would be a short term solution to alleviate significant overcrowding experienced on these lines, with electrification of these lines being sought in the medium to longer term.

 

[BestWestern]

Playing the lottery is against my religion.

Oh, well that's a good reason not to I guess! You could invest your tenner in some premium bonds then, is that ok? Better odds as well I think