I wonder whether GNER will at some stage be issuing a press release
along similar lines to the following?

Hambleton Horseshoe - A Correction

Some of our customers appear to have gained the impression that our
strategy for electrifying the stretch of line between Leeds and
Hambleton Junction was in some way a "linchpin" or "trump card" in our
franchising proposals which enabled us to "see off" our rival bidders
on the strength of the enhanced premium which would result from the
vast improvement to our Leeds-London service.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Horseshoe concept was merely an example of what can be worked up on
the back of an envelope, when you're up against it, as a "franchising
possibility" and has never been seen by ourselves as a "franchising
committment" for all of the following reasons and probably more.

* Network Rail control all the important things like  electrification
and timetabling and they think that this type of thing is far too much
hassle;

* It would never get past the "Jock Mafia" of Messrs. Mitchell, Darling
and Brown unless it was possible for us to divert the proposed route
such that it ran via Tweedbank enabling funding to be secured directly
from the Scottish Executive;

* Continual confusion would be caused by the Horseshoe causing trains
to be "the wrong way round" to/from London;

*Auntie Betty would still think she had most of the afternoon to decant
herself and her one small case off the train at Leeds. Risk assessments
have shown that their is a possibility that she would either be carried
onwards back to Kings Cross or be trampled underfoot by rampaging
London-bound passengers anxious to locate their invisible
seat-reservation tags.

*Trains arriving more than 10 minutes late into Leeds would inevitably
have their next round-trip cancelled and be used to enable succeeding
trains to be "stepped back" causing further confusion.

Our customers can be reassured that consigning the "Horseshoe Strategy"
to the bin will have no impact whatsoever on our ability to sustain the
franchise as we have been tipped the wink that we do not need to worry
too much if we don't make the premium - at least we've all managed to
keep these awful Virgin people from ruining our operation.
ENDS


--
gordon

In article ,
tshanazt@aol.com wrote:


> I wonder whether GNER will at some stage be issuing a press release
> along similar lines to the following?
> 

you are correct, with some small exceptions, 'twas always thus, a PR
hype... like the  wildely over-ambitious "premium profile" actually in the
franchise agreement, which willl never happen either.

Ab

"Andy Bunburry"  wrote in message 
news:wottoast-2407051339180001@dial81-131-86-63.in-addr.btopenworld.com...

> In article ,
> tshanazt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I wonder whether GNER will at some stage be issuing a press release
>> along similar lines to the following?
>>
> you are correct, with some small exceptions, 'twas always thus, a PR
> hype... like the  wildely over-ambitious "premium profile" actually in the
> franchise agreement, which willl never happen either.
>


I thought this was more to do with the '5th Path' (the spare off peak path 
on ECML) and blocking Grand Central. If ORR gives GC the OK, then Horseshoe 
may well not happen.

Keep watching ORR website for announcement on GC.

David

In article <AdMEe.2968$SO4.1319@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, "David Thornhill"
 wrote:


> "Andy Bunburry"  wrote in message 
> news:wottoast-2407051339180001@dial81-131-86-63.in-addr.btopenworld.com...
> > In article ,
> > tshanazt@aol.com wrote:
> >
> I thought this was more to do with the '5th Path' (the spare off peak path 
> on ECML) and blocking Grand Central. If ORR gives GC the OK, then Horseshoe 
> may well not happen.
> 
> Keep watching ORR website for announcement on GC.
> 
> David 


True-ish, but the point is that GNER made a huge fanfare when it won the
franchise that its Horeshoe plan was a winning strategy, it is VERY
unliely to happen because of the cost and timescales involved even for
such a short project. The idea was not in the frnachise specification,
purely a GNER idea to get the headlines, but at least one other bidder bid
a diesel Leeds-KX service over the same route. 

GNER got the franchise because it bid a very high "premium profile" which
it is not heavily peanlised for if it does not meet (which it won't) and
beacuse, after it has brought in new companies to the previous franchise
awards, the SRA faced a very strong pro-GNER lobby, all based on spin and
not on performance, and it did not wnat the post-award argument if once
again it kicked out the encumbent.

we shall see the truth in, say 2010, when the actual premium payments are
revealed and the wires are not being fitted east of Neville Hill

AB.

AB

wottoast@btopenworld.com (Andy Bunburry) wrote:


>True-ish, but the point is that GNER made a huge fanfare when it won the
>franchise that its Horeshoe plan was a winning strategy,



No, they didn't.  It was made clear in at least two articles I read
about the GNER bid that this additional electrification was NOT a
franchise commitment.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:f61ae1l479e78mr8a2pdi35r4u3kqqtkh9@4ax.com...

> wottoast@btopenworld.com (Andy Bunburry) wrote:
>
>>True-ish, but the point is that GNER made a huge fanfare when it won the
>>franchise that its Horeshoe plan was a winning strategy,
>
>
> No, they didn't.  It was made clear in at least two articles I read
> about the GNER bid that this additional electrification was NOT a
> franchise commitment.
>


Correct. My understanding is that there was only a commitment to a 
"feasibility study".

"John Tattersall"  wrote:


>
>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:f61ae1l479e78mr8a2pdi35r4u3kqqtkh9@4ax.com...
>> wottoast@btopenworld.com (Andy Bunburry) wrote:
>>
>>>True-ish, but the point is that GNER made a huge fanfare when it won the
>>>franchise that its Horeshoe plan was a winning strategy,
>>
>>
>> No, they didn't.  It was made clear in at least two articles I read
>> about the GNER bid that this additional electrification was NOT a
>> franchise commitment.
>>
>
>Correct. My understanding is that there was only a commitment to a 
>"feasibility study".



Thanks.  So this was just another anti-GNER rant.  

;-)