Massive own goal 2 by railway industry

[Metroland]

*deleted comment*

How many people will be put off travelling by rail? How many people will question investment in rail? Only time will tell, but I suspect the negative publicity will cost more than £27k Why is this an industry that doesn't know when to blow its own trumpets and look at the big picture?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?=&in_article_id=767186&in_page_id=34&ito=newsnow

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rence-coaches--trains-expensive.html?ITO=1490

http://www.coolsmartphone.com/blog5238.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8354358.stm

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2009/11/even-coucher-concedes-fares-too-high.html

 

[GB]

and for chartering a train, how much would that have cost and would you have got a path to get them to Coventry

When GBRf chartered thier staff train from London to Minehead earlier this year I believe it cost it region of 30-35k.

 

[romsey rocket]

Interesting thread.

I think what the problem boils down to, is that the difference in the monetary price of the two different options in this case is vastly different to the 'true' resource-based cost. Obviously the monetary price of going by coach is about £2k, and no doubt this is because the coach operator will incur costs of about this magnitude to operate the coaches for this journey. Can the same be said of the rail option though? No, IMO. The price may be £27k, but the cost to the train operator is roughly nil, because the trains will still operate, and still incur the same operating costs, regardless of whether these 200 people are on board or not. The marginal cost of carrying these 200 people by off-peak scheduled train is, approximately, £0.

So, surely, this huge differential between cost and advertised price gives room for negotiation. NR could, presumably, have approached XC with a factual statement of the situation: we need to send 200 people from Reading to Coventry and can do so by coach for £2k. We will therefore send them by coach, unless XC can beat this price. Whether XC then do choose to beat this price is up to them, but it would certainly be in their financial interest to do so, as the only alternative is to recieve a price of £0 for the empty seats. Or if for some reason they choose not to beat the price, then at least NR can say, when confronted by the media about using coaches, that they tried, but the other party wasn't willing to negotiate. Either way, it would not look like such an own goal.

 

[dk1]

When GBRf chartered thier staff train from London to Minehead earlier this year I believe it cost it region of 30-35k.

GBRf does tend to go for the top end of the market with dining etc.

 

[ukrob]

We shall watch the papers over the next few days shall we and see who is the thick one?

So you are calling people thick again, and earlier called people autistic because they had a different opinion.

Are you still going to claim to not being rude?

 

[The Planner]

The comments on the Daily Wail site are great, it shows just how much people dont understand how the industry is set up. Apparently NR set the fares for their own trains and all the staff get free travel anyway !! I wish !!

 

[dk1]

The comments on the Daily Wail site are great, it shows just how much people dont understand how the industry is set up. Apparently NR set the fares for their own trains and all the staff get free travel anyway !! I wish !!

Even safeguarded staff are not permitted to use their free/priv for duty travel.

 

[Metroland]

So you are calling people thick again, and earlier called people autistic because they had a different opinion.

Are you still going to claim to not being rude?

Its not because they have a different opinion, its because they can't seem to grasp what I'm going on about and I am having to explain it again and again, like I normally do on this forum. Or can't you grasp that either?

 

[GB]

It amazes me how people still refer to it a Railtrack or British Rail...Its not really that difficult is it??

 

[ukrob]

Its not because they have a different opinion, its because they can't seem to grasp what I'm going on about and I am having to explain it again and again, like I normally do on this forum. Or can't you grasp that either?

You just can't help yourself

Still claiming not to be rude?

I have already said that the railway should be more joined up, but you must of missed that because of the steam coming out your ears.

You just don't get it do you? I agree with you with most things! Can't you grasp that?

 

[GB]

Its not because they have a different opinion, its because they can't seem to grasp what I'm going on about and I am having to explain it again and again, like I normally do on this forum. Or can't you grasp that either?

All these people that are apparantly struggling to "grasp" what you say...did you ever think you are crap at explaining yourself?

Its always someones elses fault right?:roll:

 

[brompton rail]

Clearly Network Rail managers didn't fancy taking 200 of their staff on a Voyager on a direct service Reading to Coventry - which is currently £74, but preferred going via London for twice that (currently £146). Or is it that using XC would have ONLY cost £14k instead of £27k via London. Thus the saving by using hired coaches would have not made the same headline.

What exactly is Network Rail's game anyway? Why release this in a Press Release anyway? Who were they wishing to impress!

 

[harz99]

All these people that are apparantly struggling to "grasp" what you say...did you ever think you are crap at explaining yourself?

Its always someones elses fault right?:roll:

Hallelujah!

 

[Spartacus]

I wasn't going to reply to this, because frankly it's been getting silly, but there's a few things I need to point out.

Network Rail, despite how it looks to Joe Public, isn't sending staff by a competing mode of transport. They are no more a train company than a bus, ferry or plane company. LEGALLY they are not allowed to operate a single train in the whole UK.

Network Rail, as it's not a member of ATOC because it's not allowed to operate trains, isn't included in their travel agreements, therefore only staff with safeguarded travel can travel on the cheap. In my opinion NR hold the power here, but choose not to wield it. I'll leave this so we can stay on topic.

Considering this, imagine the rightful madness if NR had an agreement to reserve half a train for it's staff, no doubt causing problems for others, with an agreement that NR were charged only a fraction of the normal price? At the very least it would even dodgier!

Where these staff were travelling to wasn't in Coventry. It was their Westwood facility near Tile Hill. Coventry's simply the nearest city and slack journalism makes it sound like they were going there. Where they were travelling to would have required coaches or another form of road transport to reach. The question of having a facility that's not easily accessed by rail is another thread for another time, as is the normal policy of having all large meetings at Westwood.

I've been on this type of trip, and believe me, we all thought it was a bit daft. Ideas about the NMT were raised, but it's too heavily utilised and finding a crew might be difficult. I've also been involved in arranging a little route learning tour, with all costs canceling themselves out, but this only had a chance due to a number of different circumstances at the time, and ended up failing due to the lack of a suitable driver.

And as for passenger counts- you can' count passengers you can't get to because the aisles are full! Most trains can't count by weight and that's so unreliable that it can't be considered close to accurate.

And the fare that nobody wants: it's there for a reason, it's called the law. Every station to every station...just think, a discounted ticket to the KWVR from ANY station o the Network- choose your booking office well.

 

[dan_atki]

Enough of the flaming (from both sides).

Please understand that people not understanding you despite you repeating yourself over and over again does not make them stupid. Keep such opinions to yourself.

 

[Dennis]

Don't NR want everyone to go by bus anyway - certainly seems to be the policy at weekends.

 

[route:oxford]

It's a little disturbing that Network Rail are unfamiliar with the potential fare structures for this journey. Simply taking a few minutes using their own www.nationalrail.co.uk website and looking at various rail operator website, they could have done a lot better than £146, better still than the "standard" £74.

The route from Reading to Coventry has, what i call, an operator "break point" at Banbury.

So

A peak return fare from Reading to Banbury is £18.90
A peak return fare from Banbury to Coventry is £10.10

As every service stops at Banbury, we have a complete peak return for £29.00. A through seat reservation can be booked.

This can be improved on by the 26% discount generally offered for groups of 10 or more.

This reduces the individual fare to £21.46.

Now... Is it right or wrong that they travelled by bus rather than scheduled service? In my opinion, they did the right thing. Voyagers are rammed solid at peak times, as a fare paying passenger, I'd be livid if I found that 200 seats on a train were taken up by rail staff and I found myself squatting on my rucsac in the vestibule.

If they'd planned a wee bit ahead... Could the "New Measurement Train" have been used to accommodate "internal" passengers and completed a working run at the same time?

 

[tbtc]

Voyagers are rammed solid at peak times, as a fare paying passenger, I'd be livid if I found that 200 seats on a train were taken up by rail staff and I found myself squatting on my rucsac in the vestibule

I'm glad someone else thinks this.

Wikipedia says that a four car 220 has 162 standard class seats. Now, whether trains are 1/3 full or 2/3 full, I don't know how you're going to cram 200 extra people onto one...

(and since the Tile Hill place is "outside Coventry", is there a danger that taxis might be needed, or would that be a "competing form of transport"?)

 

[ivanhoe]

Really don't see what the issue is here. It was the most sensible option, did not clog up railway stations and saved the travelling public from travelling on crowded trains. Imagine the headlines of Network Rail Staff crowding Reading Station etc!! Everything has a cost attached to it and Rail is not always the sensible choice.

We don't have the stock or capacity to do these kind of things anymore, hence no football specials or seaside excursion trips anymore.

 

[ukrob]

Really don't see what the issue is here. It was the most sensible option, did not clog up railway stations and saved the travelling public from travelling on crowded trains. Imagine the headlines of Network Rail Staff crowding Reading Station etc!! Everything has a cost attached to it and Rail is not always the sensible choice.

We don't have the stock or capacity to do these kind of things anymore, hence no football specials or seaside excursion trips anymore.

I said that too, but apparently my opinion is wrong as that would not of happened :roll:

It is exactly my point. It doesn't matter how the railways should be, what is relevant is how they are today.

 

[GB]

Out of interest, who actually runs and operates the NMT?

 

[Metroland]

Having been on these 'conferences' from that very area (Reading), I can vouch what they normally consist of is sending everyone 100 miles, giving you a sandwich, putting on a video, and sending everyone back. A good use of money I'm sure.

Of course, it's not to imply that's what is happening here. But in the age of video conferencing it does make you wonder if things can't be done better.

In the very same area, they arranged to go to York. And again, instead of going by train, they hired a mini bus. The trip was rather a luxury, but the excuse boiled down to 'Well we have to use our budget up, else next year they will cut it'.

Surely that's the point?

Though it was interesting seeing on the Railway eye that NR didn't think this was bad publicity. Once again, we see a complete dislocation of how the public think, compared to the industry and some of its supporters. You don't need to take my word for it, just look at the columns of the newspapers. Alright the public have some strange ideas about all sorts of things, but this hardly helps.

It makes those of us that support the railway look foolish. I'm not even sure its good for staff morale.

Don't get me onto the voyagers: Each coach as heavy as a tank engine, about as fuel efficient per passenger as a decent diesel car with 50% loads, fitted with a shop that had to be taken out, an entertainment system that was hardly used, tilt that was turned off and about 5 coaches too short. Another monumental waste of money.

The network has more passenger than at any time since 1947, yet then it made a profit in the age of inefficient steam engines, semaphore signals, jointed track and all this stock supposedly sitting around as well as 40% more network. So much for efficiencies..don't believe any of the BS about saving money, they wouldn't know how to if they tried.

 

[87015]

It is exactly my point. It doesn't matter how the railways should be, what is relevant is how they are today.

I disagree, we shouldn't just put up with the pretty poor "system" we have today.

 

[ukrob]

I disagree, we shouldn't just put up with the pretty poor "system" we have today.

I didn't say otherwise. Read it in context of the post and thread

 

[Spartacus]

Out of interest, who actually runs and operates the NMT?

Serco.

 

[tbtc]

Having been on these 'conferences' from that very area (Reading), I can vouch what they normally consist of is sending everyone 100 miles, giving you a sandwich, putting on a video, and sending everyone back. A good use of money I'm sure.

Of course, it's not to imply that's what is happening here. But in the age of video conferencing it does make you wonder if things can't be done better.

Good to see you've admitted defeat in the "rail vs coach" debate at least. Yes, to move the goalposts, the conference could have been done differntly. But, given the choice between rail or coach, Network Rail made the correct decision (based on the current circumstances, not some pipe dream world)

 

[Metroland]

Yes, in my next thread I'm going to recommend passengers go on strike and we get rid of half the rail network because we clearly don't need it.

 

[Old Timer]

The NMT is owned by Network Rail but operated by Serco who provide the test data after each run.

Whilst the NMT might look like a conventional HST painted yellow, the vehicles has been mostly stripped and reconfigured inside into equipment / computer rooms, a pantograph coach, and messing facilities. There is one vehicle marshalled behind the power car at one end which has seating for the crew to sit in when not operating.

Even IF the NMT could have been used, it operates to a relatively strict timetable with little spare capacity and its service pattern does not match the actual route that NR would use.

This frothing about self inflicted goals just astounds me. It is quite simply a news story on a day when there appears to have been little else of interest by a newspaper that has lost its way, its vision and its readers. It will be forgotten about tomorrow.

I wonder if there would have been so much froth from airline enthusiasts if an airline had bussed its people instead of flying them ? or sent them by train ?

Oh dear, actually they do both, so as to maximise seat revenue.

On the same tac, do other non transport Companies use their own facilities ? No not always, usually very rarely.

I think the greater damage to the Industry or certainly its adherents mainly, is by the pointless self defeating sackcloth and ashes approach to this story, generally by people who have no real commercial management experience or responsibility.

Whilst it is fine in the lovely world of theory and Political belief, real life just ain't like that, as those who live it have tried to point out.

Frankly I am glad that NR saved £27,000 or whatever by not going by train. If it is operating that approach then it means that the money not lining the pockets of those who put nothing into the Industry but take everything they can, is available to be used for hopefully better uses.

The bigger issue here is the approach of Government which has treated the Railways since 1997 as a bottomless source of money, and instead of penalising failure they have both encouraged it and ignored it, even when it was staring them in the face.

The true winners have been the TOCs and the ROSCOs who have bankrolled this Government and been rewarded handsomely for doing so.

Everyone else has been a loser, especially the former Railtrack staff shareholders who were treated so abominably and contemptably when Railtrack was "crashed" for no better reason than Political expediency.

THAT is the real story here.

We have had a botched Privatisation which was implemented by an incompetent and lacklustre PM, the poor form that it took was caused by Labour's cynical renationalisation stance in Opposition (which resulted in the form Privatisation eventually took). Opportunities to put matters right were ignored by Labour who not only re-Privatised the first failed TOC but rushed ahead with a scheme of selling every part of the Railway that was not directly involved with the operation of trains.

 

[dan_atki]

Enough of the flaming (from both sides).

Please understand that people not understanding you despite you repeating yourself over and over again does not make them stupid. Keep such opinions to yourself.

Next time the thread will be locked.

 

[Old Timer]

.....Of course, it's not to imply that's what is happening here. But in the age of video conferencing it does make you wonder if things can't be done better..

The last Video-Conference that I took part in was called to save the costs of a number of us travelling halfway across the world.

The final bill for the Video Conference (which took 4 hours) was twice the costs of sending the five of us to the Country in question for two weeks, and led to a senior manager being called to explain to the Board what had happened.

The Company has since taken its video conferencing facilities out of use and issued a directive that they are never to be used again.