Virgin price war in the West Midlands

[Old Timer]

Glynn80
The word "owned" was an obvious error, and should have read "managed".

As for your suggestions that my post has "awful wording, grammar and spelling", well only you seem to have a problem with it. As a matter of interest I ran it through a readability check, here are the results.

Online Readability Software - Analysis Report
Number of words analyzed: 224

Readability: 10 % easier to read than than the average writing on the Internet

Interpreting the Results
Writing greater than 30% easier to read than the Internet is ideal.

Writing between 10-30% would be considered for high school graduate or higher.

Writing less than 10% easier than the Internet generally is meant for college graduate or higher.

For clarification as you seem to be having problems understanding the issue of Possessions.

Track access times were agreed in advance. Virgin were consistently arriving late at the diversionary points and refusing to divert via the booked diversion. As a result starting times were delayed. Because of the nature of the work, much of it was on a very tight critical path and delays of 30 and more minutes meant that the volume of work had to be reduced, or indeed the task deferred. The optimal solution would have been to over-run at the end of the Possession however that agreement could never be obtained.

This was not related to the Blockades, but to much of the preparatory works throughout a lot of the WCRM work in the southern section. Obviously a failure to complete your preparatory works ultimately impacts upon the Blockades.

Having ensured by adopting such an unhelpful strategy, the cost of the work obviously increased as the timescale was extended, and because of the route Possession strategy, this had the impact of lengthening the delay and impact far beyond what would have been the case had the trains been diverted.

As for Christmas 2007, when it became obvious that the work was too tight for the Possession, much time was spent trying to negotiate extended time.

A TOC who shall remain nameless, objected at every stage, even to the point of trying to tell experienced engineers how long it would take to do the job. THis of course was much less than what was required, but then what do the engineers know compared to the vast wealth of knowledge that ex high st retail store employees have of railway engineering.

As it turns out, the eventual investigation proved the engineers to be accurate in their estimation.


In closing it would be preferable if you could resist the urge to be combative in your replies.

 

[glynn80]

The word "owned" was an obvious error, and should have read "managed".

Yes, an obvious error which you missed

As for your suggestions that my post has "awful wording, grammar and spelling", well only you seem to have a problem with it. As a matter of interest I ran it through a readability check, here are the results.

Well I never, a readability checker!

All I can say is if that writing was for suitable high school graduate, then the USA must have a terrible education system.

For clarification as you seem to be having problems understanding the issue of Possessions.

No I understand possessions extremely well, what I didn't understand was what you mean by Virgin insisting the line opened at "normal time".

Track access times were agreed in advance. Virgin were consistently arriving late at the diversionary points and refusing to divert via the booked diversion.

Well considering the majority of Virgin Trains's delay minutes are caused by Network Rail in the first place, NR only have themselves to blame.

The optimal solution would have been to over-run at the end of the Possession however that agreement could never be obtained.

Perhaps that would have been the optimal solution for the engineers, but it certainly wouldn't have been for the travelling public trying to get to work on a Monday morning.

Obviously a failure to complete your preparatory works ultimately impacts upon the Blockades.

Again is this not a fault with Network Rail?

As for Christmas 2007, when it became obvious that the work was too tight for the Possession, much time was spent trying to negotiate extended time.
A TOC who shall remain nameless, objected at every stage, even to the point of trying to tell experienced engineers how long it would take to do the job. THis of course was much less than what was required, but then what do the engineers know compared to the vast wealth of knowledge that ex high st retail store employees have of railway engineering.

The railway is not run for the engineers. You cannot expect the travelling public to fit around your schedule, it is the engineers job to fit around their's.

And of course Virgin objected, what TOC wouldn't try to arrange a possession that practically ceases their whole operation to be in place for as short a time as possible.

 

[Old Timer]

Glynn80
Ah, another sarcastic post, this must be your hallmark.

At the end of the day, the point is that if the engineers require x hours to do a job then that is what is required.

It is unrealistic to expect that the same amount of work can be done in a late start Possession, and the need to re-open at the booked time had to require the work to be curtailed. Obviously there is a limit to the amount of work you can curtail before it starts to extend the programme, which is of course what happened. We are not talking of weekend Possessions either, but of mid-week nights.

No-one says the Railway is run by engineers, It is now run by accountants and those who feel better able to manage engineering issues from their background in commerce and University, hence why we are now in the trouble we are.

Your comment about the Christmas Blockade is disingenuous to say the least, as the Christmas 2007 Blockade time was contracted down at the insistence of the TOCs (well at least one I can name) to the point where all the Engineers were stating that the works could not be done in the time that was given. Those within the TOC who were adamant that the time was adequate were somewhat less vocal in their estimations as the pigeons came home to roost, and what the Engineers had said all along was actually correct.

Even without the OHL farce, it is a certain fact that the whole planned programme could never have been achieved, as the subsequent inquiry concluded.

It is all very well for non-experts to make their views known on matters over which they have no qualification, it is another when this results in a programme of work that is only achievable in their own minds. Unfortunately this is a trait that can be found within certain TOCs, some of whom would be better advised to look inwards to managing their own operations rather than telling others how to run theirs.

Virgin always wanted to have their cake and eat it. They wanted major modification to the WCML but with little or no impact to their train services, yet they wanted what was done, done quickly. You cannot have both.

 

[glynn80]

We are not talking of weekend Possessions either, but of mid-week nights.

All the more reason to enforce action upon Network Rail to reschedule engineering work rather than overrun.

No-one says the Railway is run by engineers, It is now run by accountants and those who feel better able to manage engineering issues from their background in commerce and University, hence why we are now in the trouble we are.

I doubt they feel they are "better able to manage" engineering issue, I suspect they are looking out for the interests of the TOCs who employ them.

Your comment about the Christmas Blockade is disingenuous to say the least, as the Christmas 2007 Blockade time was contracted down at the insistence of the TOCs (well at least one I can name) to the point where all the Engineers were stating that the works could not be done in the time that was given.

I can't think of any other period in the year when the work could have been scheduled. IIRC the work could not be split into weekend possessions and needed a clear period to carry out the work needed. Any other period in the year and you would have impacted more heavily upon passengers especially those relying on the line for commuting purposes.

Those within the TOC who were adamant that the time was adequate were somewhat less vocal in their estimations as the pigeons came home to roost, and what the Engineers had said all along was actually correct.

I find it hard to believe the TOCs were dictating to NR the time limits the project needed (did they conduct their own study or what?). Was this second hand information you received?

Even without the OHL farce, it is a certain fact that the whole planned programme could never have been achieved, as the subsequent inquiry concluded.

I'm pretty certain the enquiry did not place blame on Virgin's door and it was NR who were heavily fined for their misgivings.

Virgin always wanted to have their cake and eat it. They wanted major modification to the WCML but with little or no impact to their train services, yet they wanted what was done, done quickly. You cannot have both.

And Railtrack promised this could be achieved. It is not Virgin's problem if NR's predecessor could not keep to their commitments

 

[Old Timer]

Yet again you take my answers and ever so slightly distort what was said :roll:

I am not yet fully decided if this is trolling, just being difficult, or your modus operandi

All the more reason to enforce action upon Network Rail to reschedule engineering work rather than overrun.

I doubt they feel they are "better able to manage" engineering issue, I suspect they are looking out for the interests of the TOCs who employ them.

Contrary to what you might think, the Railway is more than just the TOCs.

I have now given you sound reasons why it was not possible to reschedule engineering works. Clearly you are not listening.

....I can't think of any other period in the year when the work could have been scheduled. IIRC the work could not be split into weekend possessions and needed a clear period to carry out the work needed. Any other period in the year and you would have impacted more heavily upon passengers especially those relying on the line for commuting purposes.....

Again comenting on something that was never said, nor was in debate.

....I find it hard to believe the TOCs were dictating to NR the time limits the project needed (did they conduct their own study or what?). Was this second hand information you received?....

Ah yes, the mandatory snipe and sneer. I wondered where we would see it. :roll::roll:

You might find it hard to believe but that is of no consequence to those of us who were actually there. Unlike you.

I'm pretty certain the enquiry did not place blame on Virgin's door and it was NR who were heavily fined for their misgivings. ....

Depends which Inquiry you refer to doesn't it. They subsequently lost their battle about engineering timescales beyond that. They actually exercised an amazing 180 degree turn from arguing that less time was required, to arguing that MORE time was required :roll::roll:

....And Railtrack promised this could be achieved. It is not Virgin's problem if NR's predecessor could not keep to their commitments

Had the new signalling worked (which of course everyone knew it would not) then Virgin would have been in serious trouble with all the issues surrounding the Pendolinos when introduced. It was partly their good fortune that Railtrack / Network Rail managed to screw up.

Network Rail were around for the greater proportion of the WCRM works however only the names at the top changed. Everyone else stayed in situ, only our name changed.

 

[glynn80]

Yet again you take my answers and ever so slightly distort what was said :roll:

What exactly have I distorted? I have done no such thing?

I am not yet fully decided if this is trolling, just being difficult, or your modus operandi

Just because someone challenges yourself, does not mean they are "trolling", you cannot expect people on a public forum to just accept your word as gospel, especially when you make posts that are clearly factually incorrect.

I have now given you sound reasons why it was not possible to reschedule engineering works. Clearly you are not listening.

You have done no such thing? Please quote where you have given sound reasons if you really believe you have.

Again comenting on something that was never said, nor was in debate.

I am allowed to bring in various other points as I wish if I feel they are relevant to the situation.

You might find it hard to believe but that is of no consequence to those of us who were actually there. Unlike you.

You are very vague and elusive when asked to give specific details, like what exactly your position is in "WCRM management"? Where exactly were you when this was said then?

Depends which Inquiry you refer to doesn't it. They subsequently lost their battle about engineering timescales beyond that. They actually exercised an amazing 180 degree turn from arguing that less time was required, to arguing that MORE time was required :roll::roll:

I am referring to the official ORR inquiry which on completion fined Network Rail a record £14m. The ORR stated that the fine was to reflect "the serious nature of this breach, the impact it had already had on passengers and rail freight users and the need for the company to take urgent action to improve its approach". They also levelled blame clearly at NR's door by stating again in the official inquiry "Network Rail (NR) "failed to ensure good site management at Rugby" (a summary can be found on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7267658.stm).

 

[Old Timer]

You have the answer to all those questions if you bother to look.

My position and status are no concern of yours, and I shall certainly not lose any sleep as to whether you believe I worked for WCRM or not.

I certainly however need no lessons from you with regards to POssession planning for the WCRM Project nor the subsequent Inquiries, note by the way the emphasis on Inquiries that took place following the Rugby debacle.

As far as I am concerned the debate is starting to go around in circles and is adding no value to the forum.

 

[glynn80]

You have the answer to all those questions if you bother to look.

:roll:

My position and status are no concern of yours, and I shall certainly not lose any sleep as to whether you believe I worked for WCRM or not.

I certainly however need no lessons from you with regards to POssession planning for the WCRM Project nor the subsequent Inquiries, note by the way the emphasis on Inquiries that took place following the Rugby debacle.

Well from the posts you have made we can assume you work for Network Rail and probably worked for Railtrack also. It seems to me you have some deep loyalty to these companies and are frustrated by their own misgivings. However you will not accept that the majority of the blame lies at the management of both companies and not with the TOCs who operate on their infrastructure. Rugby was their own fault, Greyrigg was their own fault, Hatfield was their own fault.

As far as I am concerned the debate is starting to go around in circles and is adding no value to the forum.

Finally we agree on something.

 

[t0ffeeman]

OldTimer there is no point in discussing this on this forum. There are not enough people here who know enough.

I understand and agree with most of what you have said.

 

[Old Timer]

Glynn80
I have never stated that Railtrack or Network Rail were blameless in the areas you have pointed out. Quite the reverse, indeed the whole railway infrastructure is getting worse, and has been since Maintenance was taken in-house.

WCRM was made more difficult by the intransigence of some TOCs who refused to work with us to enable us to complete the works in a sensible and optimal manner. You cannot make an omlette without breaking egss, except in the TOC world it seems.

Engineers have no interest in taking longer to do a job, it is not only a waste of time and resources, it is also expensive and raises the unit cost of renewals/new works.

Had the TOCs been more accommodating then I have no doubt that things would have been somewhat different. It is all fine and dandy for a TOC to run late and decline us access to the track, but the work still remains to be done and with the level of work and the time pressures already upon us, all delays and lost work incremented exponentionally as what could not be done in the mid-week ahd to be deferred to the weekend thus causing a much greater loss of work as a result, and so on.

For example, take OHL Structure piling. 30 minutes will equate to say a 20% loss in one night. Over 5 nights your loss is 100% i.e. one shift. The weekend would have been planned ofr the erection of the Structures with appropriate Isolations and line blockages to cover. The lost foundation piling would have to be recovered in the weekend possession with again detrimental effects on the work of the train itself, which may have been booked to work in a difficult access area, again casuing the loss of this work. And so it went on.

The TOCs are always quick to criticise any infrastructure fault/defect, but are just as quick to make it difficult to get in to remedy the problem long term. They want to run continually on the Infrastructure yet are unwilling to accept that time is needed to maintain the very same infrastructure. I can only presume they run their cars into the ground rather than take them to a garage for servicing, because that is how they treat the infrastructure.

I would also argue that NR were just as culpable, as in the view of many of us, at the booked time, the block should have gone on and any late runners should have been diverted full stop.

I would like to think that we can end the debate on good terms however, and I am quite happy to discuss Infrastructure matters in that area of the Forum as and when.

I acknowledge you expertise in the area of ticketing and may have reason to wish to call upon it at some time.

T0ffeeman
Thank you. I am rather hoping that the Infrastructure section may develop further, to the benefit of the Forum generally.

 

[25322]

Go to London with Wrexham and Shropshire!!

nothing more to say apart from then Bacon Rolls are the best on the network!!

 

[glynn80]

I would like to think that we can end the debate on good terms however, and I am quite happy to discuss Infratsructure matters in that area of the Forum as and when.

I agree with yourself and apoligise if we got off on the wrong foot.

Perhaps we both got a little carried away and in fact if you read a lot of what we have posted we agreed in general but had slight disagreements on the details!

 

[tbtc]

Many well operated TOCs did not manage to retain their franchises when rebidding mainly because of the DfT's policy of not taking into account past performance as a significant factor in awarding bids to franchisees. For example First Great Eastern and Anglia Railways both of which were award-winning TOCs classed with doing excellent work in their respective areas, lost their franchises to National Express which at the time was quite a controversial decision, considering National Express's reputation for poor customer service (Central Trains etc.)

I agree. First/ Stagecoach/ National Express/ Go Ahead etc have *all* lost franchises at some stage over the last decade (sometimes directly, sometimes due to franchise re-organisation). It's in the government's interest to keep companies competative, which may explain why previously good operators find they lose their franchise to another company...

Surely First/ Stagecoach/ National Express/ Go Ahead aren't all automatically "bad" companies because they've lost franchises?

 

[Old Timer]

I agree with yourself and apoligise if we got off on the wrong foot.

Perhaps we both got a little carried away and in fact if you read a lot of what we have posted we agreed in general but had slight disagreements on the details!

No worries chap.

I will buy you a beer one day !