modern railways writer & NR serious misquotes

[merlodlliw]

'Modern Railways' writer Tony Miles, in a post on the uk.railway group, says he has raised with WSMR the section of the recent 'Network Rail letter' which seems to suggest that WSMR are happy with ATW London train. Quoting from the letter:***
***
"As you know, Arriva Trains Wales also met with WSMR in November 2009 to discuss the application and their concerns about revenue abstraction. Following this meeting, and in recognition of WSMR’s view that their services would need a further amount of time to achieve a break-even point, ATW has confirmed that it would be prepared to delay the start date of the proposed services until December 2010."***
***
According to Tony Miles:***
***
'I checked this with WSMR and would suggest that NR has seriously***
misquoted WSMR. WSMR has actually continued to object to the ATW***
service fully - but had said "if the ATW service is approved then the later it starts the better for us in terms of building our business." The suggestion I got from my WSMR sources was "That's NOT what we said....!!"'**


This may be a bit boring to ATW supporters, but as Network Rail were not
present at the ATW/W&S meeting, yet they used third party hearsay in
their official response to the Regulator in support of ATW, which it appears was incorrect & in my opinion mischievous.

Modern Rail raised this BTW not me this time.
*

 

[tsubaki]

As misquotes go thats not especially serious, indeed the quote (as you have put it) from NR doesnt tend to give the impression that WSMR were ever "happy" with Arriva's proposed service.

 

[merlodlliw]

As misquotes go thats not especially serious, indeed the quote (as you have put it) from NR doesnt tend to give the impression that WSMR were ever "happy" with Arriva's proposed service.

Well its there for discussion, but any document put to the ORR should
be proof read and checked for attention to detail & correctness , that is the least Net Rail should have done, of course W/S were never happy with the idea,but this does not excuse Net Rail from sending in incorrect info. A simple line "a meeting was held between ATW & W/S to discuss points"is fine, but to give the impression NR attended the meeting
citing chapter & verse, when in fact they were not present is out of order, when as it appears false impressions are given in NRs letter to the ORR. I am sure the ORR will ask for clarification,when this is pointed out which I am sure will occur.

 

[thefab444]

What have National Rail got to do with it?

 

[Edvid]

They're talking about Network Rail.

 

[mumrar]

The quote doesn't say that WSMR want them to delay Arrivas services, and it doesn't say WSMR are opposed to them altogether, so where's the misquote? Your implying that the quote says words to the effect of 'WSMR have stated that they need more time to break even, and they'd be happy for Arriva to start operating services from Dec 2010', which it clearly does not say.

 

[Greenback]

The quote doesn't say that Network Rail attended the meeting between WSMR and ATW, neither does it say that WSMR agreed with, or were happy with the ATW proposals. What it does say is that following the meeting ATW have amended their proposals. These are the facts, which NR reported back to the ORR. Presumably WMSR and ATW are also able to put their views to the ORR (if they aren;t, there's something wrong!), so I;m not sure what point Mr Miles is trying to make!

 

[merlodlliw]

The quote doesn't say that Network Rail attended the meeting between WSMR and ATW, neither does it say that WSMR agreed with, or were happy with the ATW proposals. What it does say is that following the meeting ATW have amended their proposals. These are the facts, which NR reported back to the ORR. Presumably WMSR and ATW are also able to put their views to the ORR (if they aren;t, there's something wrong!), so I;m not sure what point Mr Miles is trying to make!

This is the point in question from NRs letter. the last 7 words are in dispute
and have been inserted on hearsay by NR, it appears NR have published these
comments without.
1.Being present
2.Without checking them out with the other party, as to their correctness,thus giving ATW support.



3. The profitability of WSMR will be pushed back by one year
As noted in (2) above, in order to address this concern ATW has confirmed to WSMR that it would be prepared to delay the start date of the proposed services until December 2010. WSMR has indicated its support for this.

 

[mumrar]

'of the proposed services until Decmber 2010' are the last seven words of the letter as you provided. You say that NR have included them based on hearsay, but in your reply you say that ATW has indicated it's willingness to delay the services and WSMR are supporting this. So, is that statement of yours based on hearsay? If you've made that statement, why can't NR make mention of it too, as you seem to accept as fact?

 

[merlodlliw]

'of the proposed services until Decmber 2010' are the last seven words of the letter as you provided. You say that NR have included them based on hearsay, but in your reply you say that ATW has indicated it's willingness to delay the services and WSMR are supporting this. So, is that statement of yours based on hearsay? If you've made that statement, why can't NR make mention of it too, as you seem to accept as fact?

NR have already mentioned, that's where I got it from, not my inventions of words, the wording is taken from the NR letter to the ORR, however the last 7 words are obviously taken from a third party.

I have no problem with NR mentioning a meeting took place with ATW & W/S
but NR can not get away with making a comment, the last 7 words" WSMR has indicated its support for this." before checking it out with both parties first.

I might be pedantic about wording with this, but I would expect an official document from Network Rail to the governing authority ORR, which was going to be published
would be without rumour, Tony Miles is no amateur in dealing with ORR submissions and he picked this up, as have others.

 

[thefab444]

They're talking about Network Rail.

Ah, Merlod's changed it to Net Rail, he previously mentioned Nat Rail.