This appeared in the Newcastle Journal today. I cant help but think someone
at the DfT is testing the water before the final service cuts are decided.

Savage rails cuts urged for North Aug 5 2005
By Ross Smith, The Journal

Rail strategy bosses have recommended savage cuts to services in the North
as one of their final acts before they lose control of the network.

The Strategic Rail Authority has called for uneconomic local services in the
North to be slashed, and poured cold water on new links from London to the
region.

The report was described by one angry train company boss as the body's
"parting shot" before it is wound up by Government over the next few months.

Network Rail will decide whether to take on board its recommendations when
it produces a strategy for the East Coast line later this year.

They include the discontinuation of trains from Newcastle to Morpeth and
Chathill. Round-trip services between Newcastle and Sunderland would be
ditched, with Metros left to serve the route.

The frequency of cross country trains from Birmingham and the South-West to
Newcastle would be halved, and those that would go to Newcastle would run
via Hartlepool.

Half the TransPennine services which currently run to Newcastle would go to
Sunderland via Hartlepool instead.

And a proposal by Grand Central Rail to run direct links from London to
Sunderland and Teesside would be ruled out, as would new GNER services to
those areas.

The proposals are contained in a working note for the SRA's East Coast Main
Line strategy, which has been seen by The Journal. They are justified on the
grounds of saving money, improving performance and matching capacity to
demand.

But they were last night criticised by business, unions and a passenger
watchdog.

And Grand Central managing director Ian Yeowart said: "It's the SRA's
parting shot, but it might form the bedrock of a route utilisation strategy.
It's a pretty poor document for the North. It's not offering much."

North-East Chamber of Commerce chief executive George Cowcher said:
"Northumberland, as a county, is not well served by rail services.

"If they're actually downgrading services to Morpeth and Chathill, that
would be of major concern to our members in that area. If they're going to
reduce services between Newcastle, which is the regional capital, and
Birmingham, which is the second city in the UK, that's disappointing.

"There's a danger here of muddling up a number of things. We do need to see
improved services to Hartlepool and Sunderland, but not by diminishing
services to Tyneside."

Stan Herschel, regional organiser for rail union RMT, said: "I think this is
probably our worst fears.

"We suspected Morpeth and Chathill would be one of the first to face the
axe." He added: "We will continue our fight to save Northern rail services."

Peter Wood, of passengers' group Railfuture, said: "This is the last will
and testament of the SRA and the sooner both it and its report is buried,
the better.

"It doesn't seem to do anything to encourage the development of rail in this
region, which the Government was elected to pursue."

What the report proposes:

* Revising Northern Rail services where services have low demand

* In particular, axing the Newcastle to Morpeth/Chathill service

* Halving the number of Cross Country trains to Newcastle

* Sending those that do come via Hartlepool and Sunderland

* Sending TransPennine services to Newcastle via Hartlepool and Sunderland

* Cutting Sunderland to Newcastle round-trip services

* No direct rail link from London to Teesside or Sunderland.



-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

"Boogaloo"  wrote


> This appeared in the Newcastle Journal today. I cant help but think 
> someone
> at the DfT is testing the water before the final service cuts are decided.
>
> Savage rails cuts urged for North Aug 5 2005
> By Ross Smith, The Journal


Immediately followed by road congestion charging no doubt.

John.

John Turner wrote:


> Immediately followed by road congestion charging no doubt.


   Most likely. I really detest the attitude these days when those in 
power are considering poorly used services. The only word that seems to 
get bandied around is 'Closure'. They never talk about looking in to 
other ways to get traffic up, finding out why people don't use the 
services and what services they would use.

   What is needed is a way to give people an alternative to driving all 
the way. Parking in Sunderland and Newcastle is not at all fun and is 
stupidly expensive - no wonder the Metrocentre does so well. However, do 
we see stations being built at places line Easington / Horden with nice 
large carparks and easy access to the A19 so a park and ride system can 
be implemented? No, thought not. Most people drive in to cities because 
there is no alternative or none that is sensible. Especially where 
families are concerned, public transport is not economic compared to 
using the car (assuming you already have one - if not the it becomes a 
more complex equation) so ideally steps would be taken to make it a more 
realistic alternative to get cars out of busy areas.

   One other comment on the original post is that they seem to be 
diverting a lot of services up the coast - seems odd that the ECML will 
only have freight and GNER services if this goes ahead. First thought is 
that Durham and Darlington will lose out badly, second is why not just 
electrify the coast and send the lot that way...

   I'd suggest a variation on their scheme for the VXC services. Reduce 
the frequency from Newcastle back to hourly but introduce bi-hourly 
services from Sunderland to BNS via Leeds and Middlesborough to BNS via 
Doncaster (as Mids > Leeds is already served by TPX) Both these would 
give direct services to Sheffield and Brum for places that don't have 
them, and a direct service to Doncaster for other connections for 
Middlesborough folk.

Boogaloo wrote:

> Savage rails cuts urged for North Aug 5 2005


Cue Tony Polson with why they should be cut, simply because he doesn't 
use these particular services

Boogaloo wrote:


> * Revising Northern Rail services where services have low demand


I can see a case for doing that in certain areas, but not all of those
that they are proposing.
 

> * In particular, axing the Newcastle to Morpeth/Chathill service


I would axe the service _north_ of Morpeth. I would like to see trains
to Morpeth made more useful, with one or two additional stations, and
ideally in increased frequency - with the population along the route,
there is no call to _reduce_ services.
 

> * Halving the number of Cross Country trains to Newcastle


No comment. I don't know how well loaded they are north of York. It
does seem that the York to Newcastle corridor is very well catered
for, and there might be some scope for reducing services.
 

> * Sending those that do come via Hartlepool and Sunderland


If this is looking at _all_ XC services, I think this would be wrong,
as it would impose a significant time penalty for long-distance
passengers travelling to/from Scotland.

If it is only for those services terminating at Newcastle, I think it
would be a very good idea. The service along the Durham Coast is
appalling, and would benefit from massive improvements.
 

> * Sending TransPennine services to Newcastle via Hartlepool and 
> Sunderland


Combined with the point above, this seems a bit odd. It sounds like
they are trying to remove all local services from the coast route.

The minimum service I would want to see on that line would be the
current service PLUS an hourly fast train, which could be an extension
of the current Mbro TPX service. However, this reversal would add a
significant time penalty for long-distance passengers, so is not
ideal. What would be better, of course, would be to extend the TPX
from Middlesbrough _and_ run the VXC services direct from Eaglescliffe
to Stockton.

New stations should be built at Ryhope, Easington and Horden &
Peterlee at the very least - those towns alone have a combined
population of about 45,000, not to mention the villages around that
could use these as convenient railheads.
 

> * Cutting Sunderland to Newcastle round-trip services


I'm not sure what they mean by "round trip" services. There needs to
be some sort of heavy rail service between Sunderland and Newcastle,
to provide direct connections from the Durham Coast and Teesside. It
may be that running 2 fast trains per hour through, and terminating
the stopping trains at Sunderland, is the best way to achieve this.


> * No direct rail link from London to Teesside or Sunderland.


I can see the point there. With improved connections to Teesside and
Sunderland, including direct fast trains from Hartlepool and
Sunderland to York that are either TPX or IC standard, that flow is
adequately catered for. Yes, through trains would be nice, but with
fast trains to Manchester and Birmingham, with connections at York
every half hour, a direct service would not be frequent enough to be
all that advantageous.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Darren wrote:

> Boogaloo wrote:
>> Savage rails cuts urged for North Aug 5 2005
>
> Cue Tony Polson with why they should be cut, simply because he doesn't
> use these particular services


Sadly the pillock need no cue.

> > * In particular, axing the Newcastle to Morpeth/Chathill service
>
> I would axe the service _north_ of Morpeth. I would like to see trains
> to Morpeth made more useful, with one or two additional stations, and
> ideally in increased frequency - with the population along the route,
> there is no call to _reduce_ services.


The service south of Morpeth can be full and standing in the peaks, so more
capacity would have to come before more stations.


>
> > * Halving the number of Cross Country trains to Newcastle
>
> No comment. I don't know how well loaded they are north of York. It
> does seem that the York to Newcastle corridor is very well catered
> for, and there might be some scope for reducing services.


In the peaks they are full and standing as well as leaving people behind in
the peaks between Newcastle and Durham. Off peak you would probably able to
get away with loosing every other one.


>
> > * Sending those that do come via Hartlepool and Sunderland
>
> If this is looking at _all_ XC services, I think this would be wrong,
> as it would impose a significant time penalty for long-distance
> passengers travelling to/from Scotland.
>
> If it is only for those services terminating at Newcastle, I think it
> would be a very good idea. The service along the Durham Coast is
> appalling, and would benefit from massive improvements.


This bit puzzles me, they are wanting to divert 125mph trains via the coast
(which is 70mph max) while leaving some TPX services (currently 90mph soon
to be 100mph) on the 125mph mainline?!?


>
> > * Sending TransPennine services to Newcastle via Hartlepool and
> > Sunderland
>
> Combined with the point above, this seems a bit odd. It sounds like
> they are trying to remove all local services from the coast route.


They could just do what ARRIVA did, extend every other service to York at
least. These were popular services from the Durham coast which disappeared
after the TPX split.


>
> The minimum service I would want to see on that line would be the
> current service PLUS an hourly fast train, which could be an extension
> of the current Mbro TPX service. However, this reversal would add a
> significant time penalty for long-distance passengers, so is not
> ideal. What would be better, of course, would be to extend the TPX
> from Middlesbrough _and_ run the VXC services direct from Eaglescliffe
> to Stockton.


You have capacity problems on the coast, there is a section between
Hartlepool and Seaham which takes 17min to clear, effectively giving 3
trains per hour north of Hartlepool. Fine if you have two trains per hour,
but if things start running late (like in the days when Hartlepool use to
have a half hourly service) and the Seaham Cements show up, the knock on
effect causes delays to trains following up to an hour and a half later.


>
> New stations should be built at Ryhope, Easington and Horden &
> Peterlee at the very least - those towns alone have a combined
> population of about 45,000, not to mention the villages around that
> could use these as convenient railheads.
>
> > * Cutting Sunderland to Newcastle round-trip services
>
> I'm not sure what they mean by "round trip" services. There needs to
> be some sort of heavy rail service between Sunderland and Newcastle,
> to provide direct connections from the Durham Coast and Teesside. It
> may be that running 2 fast trains per hour through, and terminating
> the stopping trains at Sunderland, is the best way to achieve this.


I think this might mean the current xx:30 departure from Newcastle and the
xx:00 departure from Sunderland, which is being cut in December anyway to
ease the congestion there currently is on the Newcastle - Sunderland line.
Nexus, who is incharge of this part of the line 'say' there is no need for
two fast trains an hour.


> > * No direct rail link from London to Teesside or Sunderland.
>
> I can see the point there. With improved connections to Teesside and
> Sunderland, including direct fast trains from Hartlepool and
> Sunderland to York that are either TPX or IC standard, that flow is
> adequately catered for. Yes, through trains would be nice, but with
> fast trains to Manchester and Birmingham, with connections at York
> every half hour, a direct service would not be frequent enough to be
> all that advantageous.


Some would say with fast trains to London with conections to Manchester and
Birmingham at York would be better.


-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

Boogaloo wrote:


> The service south of Morpeth can be full and standing in the peaks, so 
> more capacity would have to come before more stations.


As I said, more frequent trains. At the very least, use the stock time
you have released by canxing the Chathill Flyer to run one extra peak
train to/from Morpeth. If there is literally no track capacity, run it
as a 2+2 unit. Ideally, a half-hourly service throughout the day.
 

> In the peaks they are full and standing as well as leaving people 
> behind in the peaks between Newcastle and Durham. Off peak you would 
> probably able to get away with loosing every other one.


The issue is not only the VXC services though. This route is shared
with GNER and TPX, so we need to look at capacity on the route as a
whole. If a 4-car Voyager is running full and standing, and then a few
minutes later a 9-car Mallard is running with spare seats, just
because everyone piled onto the first train through, that is a
strategic issue that needs to be looked at more closely.

I'm not saying that that is the case, but simply because one
operator's train is full and standing under the current timetable
doesn't necessarily mean that the capacity is needed.
 

> This bit puzzles me, they are wanting to divert 125mph trains via the 
> coast (which is 70mph max) while leaving some TPX services (currently 
> 90mph soon to be 100mph) on the 125mph mainline?!?


It's all a bit of a puzzle.
 

> You have capacity problems on the coast, there is a section between
> Hartlepool and Seaham which takes 17min to clear, effectively giving 3
> trains per hour north of Hartlepool.


Is it really beyond the wit of man to divide that block up into three
smaller blocks?


> I think this might mean the current xx:30 departure from Newcastle and 
> the xx:00 departure from Sunderland, which is being cut in December 
> anyway to ease the congestion there currently is on the Newcastle - 
> Sunderland line. Nexus, who is incharge of this part of the line 'say' 
> there is no need for two fast trains an hour.


I don't see a tremendous need for express shuttles between Newcastle
and Sunderland. Yes, through trains from the Coast and Teesside should
run through, because passengers won't want to change to the Metro.
 

> Some would say with fast trains to London with conections to 
> Manchester and Birmingham at York would be better.


They would indeed, and looking at one line in isolation they might be
right. But there needs to be a more strategic overview.

GNER run fast trains from London to Newcastle and beyond. These are
the premium trains, carrying the most passengers on the longest
average journeys. These are the trains that need to be given the best
route, which is straight up and down the ECML, and not diverted onto
the slower Coast route.

VXC and TPX run semi-fast trains to various places. These are the
medium quality trains, carrying a fair number of people a fair
distance - certainly more people going further than the local trains,
but nowhere near as many or as far as on GNER. It is less important
that these get the top paths on the fastest routes, so it makes more
sense to send them via the Coast.

This way, the Coast can have a regular, frequent (at least hourly)
express service - which it could never hope to achieve if its only
fast trains were to London.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Boogaloo" <morebeer@anytime.please> wrote in message 
news:dd0sv8$e7o$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> This appeared in the Newcastle Journal today. I cant help but think 
> someone
> at the DfT is testing the water before the final service cuts are decided.
>
> Savage rails cuts urged for North Aug 5 2005
> By Ross Smith, The Journal
>
> Rail strategy bosses have recommended savage cuts to services in the North
> as one of their final acts before they lose control of the network.
>
> The Strategic Rail Authority has called for uneconomic local services in 
> the
> North to be slashed, and poured cold water on new links from London to the
> region.
>
> The report was described by one angry train company boss as the body's
> "parting shot" before it is wound up by Government over the next few 
> months.
>

The only "savage cut" in this proposal is that of the Morpeth and Chathill 
service which must be opposed.

The idea of having two XC trains per hour to Newcastle was always 
ridiculous, as they follow one another because the one via Leeds gets caught 
up by the one via Doncaster. There should just be one (proper length) train. 
IMHO there should be a fast train from Birmingham direction to Edinburgh 
(222, HST), alternating via Doncaster and Pontefract, whilst the other train 
(220/221) would terminate at Leeds. Any spare Voyagers could then be used on 
Notts - Cardiff.

Sunderland could be served by half the TPX services, whilst those that 
terminate at Middlesbrough should the reverse and run to Newcastle via 
Norton Jn and Ferryhill to give a fast Middlesbrough - Newcastle service.

GCR's plans to run to Sunderland and Bradford should be supported. The SRA 
is worried about abstraction from GNER services. Of course there will be 
some abstraction, but that is inevitable if you are offering the residents 
of Sunderland, Brighouse, Halifax and Bradford through services to London 
which they don't at present have. Any new service will cause some 
abstraction from other services as well as new passengers. If it is 
inadmissible to have some abstraction then forget any new services. What is 
effectively being said by the SRA is that the new services will cause them 
to receive a lower premium. Thus revenue to the treasury is more important 
than service to the public.

Peter Fox

Peter Fox

"Peter Fox"  wrote

>
> The idea of having two XC trains per hour to Newcastle was always
> ridiculous, as they follow one another because the one via Leeds gets
caught
> up by the one via Doncaster. There should just be one (proper length)
train.
> IMHO there should be a fast train from Birmingham direction to Edinburgh
> (222, HST), alternating via Doncaster and Pontefract, whilst the other
train
> (220/221) would terminate at Leeds. Any spare Voyagers could then be used
on
> Notts - Cardiff.
>

Running the Birmingham - Edinburgh train via Leeds makes sense, as it
provides a through service between Leeds and Edinburgh.The slower
Birmingham - Edinburgh service which results is irrelevant, as the fastest
Birmingham - Edinburgh journeys are via the WCML.

Peter

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:16:22 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
Fox"  wrote this:-


>The idea of having two XC trains per hour to Newcastle was always 
>ridiculous, as they follow one another because the one via Leeds gets caught 
>up by the one via Doncaster. There should just be one (proper length) train. 
>IMHO there should be a fast train from Birmingham direction to Edinburgh 
>(222, HST), alternating via Doncaster and Pontefract, whilst the other train 
>(220/221) would terminate at Leeds.


The British rail approach.

Whenever I go that way I see lots of people using the train between
points north of Leeds and Leeds. ISTM that sending fast trains this
way is a good balance with other services. Virgin thought there was
a market for these trains and they have been proved right in my
view.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:dd2nqb$8te$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "Peter Fox"  wrote
>>
>> The idea of having two XC trains per hour to Newcastle was always
>> ridiculous, as they follow one another because the one via Leeds gets
> caught
>> up by the one via Doncaster. There should just be one (proper length)
> train.
>> IMHO there should be a fast train from Birmingham direction to Edinburgh
>> (222, HST), alternating via Doncaster and Pontefract, whilst the other
> train
>> (220/221) would terminate at Leeds. Any spare Voyagers could then be used
> on
>> Notts - Cardiff.
>>
> Running the Birmingham - Edinburgh train via Leeds makes sense, as it
> provides a through service between Leeds and Edinburgh.The slower
> Birmingham - Edinburgh service which results is irrelevant, as the fastest
> Birmingham - Edinburgh journeys are via the WCML.
>

But it also means a slow service from the East Midlands and Sheffield. The 
time from Sheffield to York via Leeds is slower than steam timings on the 
direct route. Whether the time to Edinburgh is faster from BNS via the WC is 
irrelevent to pax to the North East or pax from any other stations. It is 
important to have a fast service to the North East. There are enough trains 
from Leeds to York anyway with connections for Edinburgh. And there could be 
through GNER HSTs at certain times.

Peter Fox

I used to live in the North East and it always struck me how poor the
local services were in the area in comparison to many others. For
Sunderland (pop about 250,000 and Middlesbrough (pop about 150,000) not
to have direct services to London is absurd. If, instead of the "cheap
and nasty" Metro extension to Sunderland that was put in becasue that
was all J*hn Pr*sc*tt would allow, the Newcastle - Sunderland line had
been electrified at 25 kV, then some terminating GNER trains could have
been extended from Newcastle to Sunderland and we would have had the
basis for an electrified local service network.

As for the luckless inhabitants of Morpeth: does any county town have
such a poor service? It is almost impossible to travel north from
Morpeth at a time that suits you as there are only a handful of GNER
trains per day that stop there. Even Northallerton, which is a lot
smaller (about 10,000 population instead of 17,000 although I stand to
be corrected) has a better service - WHICH PEOPLE USE. Or even Retford!

There is a potential demand for local services north of Newcastle as
both Pegswood and Widdrington Station have populations of about 5,000
and 2,000 (approx) but with only one train a day, who will use the
train? Why not have a half-hourly local service Newcastle - Morpeth
(assuming the paths are available) with hourly beyond to Alnmouth (but
only serving Acklington in the peaks as it is in the middle of
nowhere), where a park-and-ride could be developed, and then maybe
about four-six trains per day stopping at stations beyond to Edinburgh.
This could also allow the provision of services to Belford and East
Linton, both small-ish but isolated communities that could benefot from
a train service.

It won't happen, of course, because it would mean fewer people driving
and therefore less money to the Treasury. Not to mention infrastructure
improvements! Remeber that politicans of all shades have been promising
to upgrade the A1 north of Newcastle, which sees more fatalities in a
month than on the railway in an average year, for the last 20 years and
nothing has happened - well, not on the English side.

As for the Durham Coast line, I agree that it needs more stations and
upgrading signalling (which would only need the provision of some
intermediate block signals, I believe), especially as Easington and
Horden (not to mention Hartlepool) are areas of above-average
unemployment and the "service" offered to towns such as Hartlepool,
Billingham and Stockton (all with populations of about 75,000) is
abysmal. I agree that some VXC and TPX services should run this way.
BUT - the joint Metro/National Rail section is now the constraint and
to accommodate more trains, would need to be quadrupled in places. This
is not impossible - most of the Pelaw - Brockley Whins section could be
widened, although the Seaburn - Sunderland section could not be.

But again, the Government does not want people to reduce their usage of
cars - this is clearly evident in their proposals for new communities
(Prescottvilles?) in the South East which would be entirely
car-dependent. I did also read somewhere (possibly in Modern Railways),
that the Givernment had stated in a Parliamentary written answer that
the costings of any new public transport scheme had to include an
allowance to the Treasury for lost fuel duty. Can anyone confirm this?

It's quite clear that the Government would love to ditch almost all the
secondary services in the North East and I wonder of this is because it
is such a Labour stronghold with few marginal seats, so a Conservative
government has no electoral motivation to do anything about it and a
Labour one knows full well that however badly they treat the
electorate, they will still get voted in.

snip:

>    What is needed is a way to give people an alternative to driving all
> the way. Parking in Sunderland and Newcastle is not at all fun and is
> stupidly expensive - no wonder the Metrocentre does so well. However, do
> we see stations being built at places line Easington / Horden with nice
> large carparks and easy access to the A19 so a park and ride system can
> be implemented? No, thought not. Most people drive in to cities because
> there is no alternative or none that is sensible. Especially where
> families are concerned, public transport is not economic compared to
> using the car (assuming you already have one - if not the it becomes a
> more complex equation) so ideally steps would be taken to make it a more
> realistic alternative to get cars out of busy areas.


Even a single person, depending upon route, distance and time of travel,
will find it cheaper to travel by car than by train assuming they already
run an economical car. Our car does 50mpg most of the time and even with
diesel costing arround 4.30 a gallon this works out at a little less than
10p per mile, plus wear and tear, say another 10p per mile, which compares
favourably with the cost of a saver return on many routes. We in common with
many people living in rural areas in the north (or the rest of the country
for that matter) have no public transport with in reasonable walking
distance, therefore journeys have to start in the car anyway, add this to
the cost parking at many stations, and you can see why it proves hard to get
people to take public transport seriously.

As a good example of this our local station Thirsk has recently introduced
parking charges.

The people who set the policy and determine the way the railways are run
could make a big impact on road congestion, and they are at the moment
succeding, they are making it worse!

The end result of this that we rarely use the train for lesuire journeys,
but I still use the train for business journeys where I dont have to bear
the cost. Cuts in services will just make matters worse.

billetelic_ferroequinologist@hotmail.com wrote:


> I used to live in the North East and it always struck me how poor the
> local services were in the area in comparison to many others. For
> Sunderland (pop about 250,000 and Middlesbrough (pop about 150,000) not
> to have direct services to London is absurd. If, instead of the "cheap
> and nasty" Metro extension to Sunderland that was put in becasue that
> was all J*hn Pr*sc*tt would allow, the Newcastle - Sunderland line had
> been electrified at 25 kV, then some terminating GNER trains could have
> been extended from Newcastle to Sunderland and we would have had the
> basis for an electrified local service network.


[I'm not sure quite where you get the population figures from, or
whether they are more accurate than mine - all figures I quote are
from www.world-gazetteer.com]

Sunderland (pop 178k) is about the same size as Norwich or
Bournemouth; Middlesbrough is not much smaller, (pop 142k) and is
about the same size as Blackpool or Bolton.

Bolton and Blackpool don't have through services to London either, but
they do have good connections via Manchester and Preston. I don't
think the lack of London services is desperate - I would probably rank
it as 'aspirational' - it would be nice to have it, but there may be
cheaper and easier ways of progressing.


> As for the luckless inhabitants of Morpeth: does any county town have
> such a poor service? It is almost impossible to travel north from
> Morpeth at a time that suits you as there are only a handful of GNER
> trains per day that stop there. Even Northallerton, which is a lot
> smaller (about 10,000 population instead of 17,000 although I stand to
> be corrected) has a better service - WHICH PEOPLE USE. Or even Retford!


Morpeth has a population of 14k, less than Northallerton at 16k.
Retford is surprisingly big at 22k.

The only other county town in England that springs to mind with a
comparable rail service is Oakham (pop 10k), which likewise has an
hourly service through it

Part of the difference is that Northallerton and Retford have centres
of population all round - hence why they have rail services in all
directions. Morpeth is somewhat isolated - there is very little to the
north at all - hence why only 3 GNER services a day call there.

Yes, it does deserve a better service. More regular connections
northwards would be good, especially if these services also called at
Alnmouth and Berwick - if they are non-stop to Scotland then they will
be far less useful.


> There is a potential demand for local services north of Newcastle as
> both Pegswood and Widdrington Station have populations of about 5,000
> and 2,000 (approx) but with only one train a day, who will use the
> train?


Even with a more regular service, who will use the train?

Pegswood (pop 3.2k) is about the same size as Burtonwood (by a railway
line, no station), Boreham Essex (by a railway line, no station); the
next 6 bigger places are all without stations until Moreton-in-Marsh.
The next 9 are stationless until Whalley.

Widdrington has a population of only 2.2k.

We are not talking about big places here.


> Why not have a half-hourly local service Newcastle - Morpeth
> (assuming the paths are available) with hourly beyond to Alnmouth (but
> only serving Acklington in the peaks as it is in the middle of
> nowhere), where a park-and-ride could be developed, and then maybe
> about four-six trains per day stopping at stations beyond to Edinburgh.
> This could also allow the provision of services to Belford and East
> Linton, both small-ish but isolated communities that could benefot from
> a train service.


Pegswood has 5 buses per hour to Morpeth, with one route (from
Ashington) providing a 20-minute frequency service running until late.
The village (and the Ashington corridor) would be far better served by
developing this as a connecting service with the trains at Morpeth
than by any train service that Pegswood could ever merit.

Stopping trains running right up would be nice, but totally
unjustifiable. East Linton is home to just 2k people; Belford to only
1k. Even counting Bamburgh, Seahouses and Wooler in its catchment
(which is fairly tenuous), it only brings in a total of 4k. But again,
the villages are better served by an hourly bus service offering
connections than an infrequent and irregular train service. As the
line is already heavily used, with 3 intercity trains per hour plus a
fair number of freight trains, and has few passing loops, it would
probably require considerably investment to path in a regular slow
train - quite simply it is not affordable to do so for so few people.

What would really help the area is to have an "all stations" train at
regular intervals, calling at Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar -
ideally every hour, probably GNER, if they can extend the 2-hourly
Newcastle terminator to Edinburgh.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

>
> It's quite clear that the Government would love to ditch almost all the
> secondary services in the North East and I wonder of this is because it
> is such a Labour stronghold with few marginal seats, so a Conservative
> government has no electoral motivation to do anything about it and a
> Labour one knows full well that however badly they treat the
> electorate, they will still get voted in.
>



Thats exactly what's happening. To date only eight out of all the Labour MPs
from the Northeast have stated they will help fight any cuts to passenger
services, the rest haven't even replied to letters from constituents sent
earlier this year asking them to do the same.

One of the biggest supporters is the regions only Tory MP, even with the
NEXUS cuts, its been the Tory councillors on the PTA that have kicked up a
fuss, the Labour members have all but shut up and done nout.


-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

>
> What would really help the area is to have an "all stations" train at
> regular intervals, calling at Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar -
> ideally every hour, probably GNER, if they can extend the 2-hourly
> Newcastle terminator to Edinburgh.
>


What I would do north of Newcastle is this.

Despite how much I liked working the Chathill service Id scrap it north of
Morpeth and use the unit to run an earlier first train from Morpeth and
Cramlington.

Then like you say have an all stations service to Edinburgh every two hours
using the existing Virgin service. As for how successful this would be,
after GNER and Virgin started stopping extra services at Almouth, ticket
sales at the booking office went up 50%.

-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

Followed ny the usual snideness from Ian Johnston (which he will no
doubt use in future in support of his application for a further 3-year
grant to research self-proctology)

> I used to live in the North East and it always struck me how poor the
> local services were in the area in comparison to many others. For
> Sunderland (pop about 250,000 and Middlesbrough (pop about 150,000) not
> to have direct services to London is absurd. If, instead of the "cheap
> and nasty" Metro extension to Sunderland that was put in becasue that
> was all J*hn Pr*sc*tt would allow, the Newcastle - Sunderland line had
> been electrified at 25 kV, then some terminating GNER trains could have
> been extended from Newcastle to Sunderland and we would have had the
> basis for an electrified local service network.
>


If I remember correctly something like this was suggested by someone back in
the 1990s. Electrification from the MetroCentre to Sunderland, with a new
station at Park Lane, like there is now, so those trains terminating at
Sunderland could turnaround there rather than in the as sidings.

With modern EMUs you could add one or two stations on the route with out
extending the journey times and with 5 EMUs you could have Sunderland and
Morpeth services in the hands of electric traction. And like you say GNER
could have extended the Newcastle terminators there, rather than sitting a
Heaton for best part of an hour.

This would have also prevented all the restrictions you now have on the
Sunderland with freights stuck at 30mph and ac traction being banned from
being hauled under the dc wires.


-- 
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

Mike D wrote:

>  Our car does 50mpg most of the time and even with
> diesel costing arround 4.30 a gallon this works out at a little less than
> 10p per mile, plus wear and tear, say another 10p per mile,


   I did a rough costing exercise a while back and it came out at more 
than this for me, but then it depends just what you actually count as an 
expense. For example, based on 1000 miles a month, I'm paying about 
10p/mile for fuel, 10p/mile to repay the car loan, 3p/mile insurance, 
1p/mile road tax and about 3p/mile for servicing / MOT / repairs. The 
most variable thing there is the actual car cost - if you change your 
car often it can be much higher, if you run it until it drops then this 
value is much lower but then repairs will creep up a bit.

   However, the point still holds that there isn't much in it for just 
one person - factors like expensive parking at the end of the journey 
can swing it - but when you think it costs at most a fraction of a penny 
more per extra person in the car it soon builds up.


> As a good example of this our local station Thirsk has recently introduced
> parking charges.


   I really do fail to see the logic of this sort of thing, especially 
at somewhere like Thirsk. Stations where the parking could be used by 
non-rail users - say Durham - then a charge is maybe acceptable, but 
Thirsk station isn't even in Thirsk and you are going to get little if 
any non-rail use.

   The only sort of carpark charging I would like to see is where you 
can redeem the cost of parking off the rail ticket you purchase. If 
non-rail users were prepared to pay the charges then good luck to them 
but genuine users would not be penalised.


> The people who set the policy and determine the way the railways are run
> could make a big impact on road congestion, and they are at the moment
> succeding, they are making it worse!


   Exactly - the roads around here (Stockport) are terrible at weekends 
currently as there are no trains so everyone has to drive. Even when 
trains run it's impossible to get to where people want to go for a day 
out without it taking several times longer than the car. It shouldn't be 
necessary to drive to many places but it often is the only sensible 
option due to lack of any alternative.

snip:

>    I did a rough costing exercise a while back and it came out at more
> than this for me, but then it depends just what you actually count as an
> expense. For example, based on 1000 miles a month, I'm paying about
> 10p/mile for fuel, 10p/mile to repay the car loan, 3p/mile insurance,
> 1p/mile road tax and about 3p/mile for servicing / MOT / repairs. The
> most variable thing there is the actual car cost - if you change your
> car often it can be much higher, if you run it until it drops then this
> value is much lower but then repairs will creep up a bit.
>
>    However, the point still holds that there isn't much in it for just
> one person - factors like expensive parking at the end of the journey
> can swing it - but when you think it costs at most a fraction of a penny
> more per extra person in the car it soon builds up.


To be fair we live in a rural area where car ownership is a nessecity, so
insurance, road tax and a proportion of depreciation and repairs tend to be
fixed costs, so when you are looking at alternatives for a particular
journey train is often more expensive, just depends on what deal you can
get, for example GNER were doing a 19 return to London from York
pre-booked, but you try and actully find a train that they can be used on
and has some seats available at this price, it's nearly impossible. Equally
we are planning a trip to Rome later this year and the return fare from
Teesside is about 79 each, this looks good value per mile.

Mike D

Mike D wrote:

> snip:
> >    I did a rough costing exercise a while back and it came out at more
> > than this for me, but then it depends just what you actually count as an
> > expense. For example, based on 1000 miles a month, I'm paying about
> > 10p/mile for fuel, 10p/mile to repay the car loan, 3p/mile insurance,
> > 1p/mile road tax and about 3p/mile for servicing / MOT / repairs. The
> > most variable thing there is the actual car cost - if you change your
> > car often it can be much higher, if you run it until it drops then this
> > value is much lower but then repairs will creep up a bit.
> >
> >    However, the point still holds that there isn't much in it for just
> > one person - factors like expensive parking at the end of the journey
> > can swing it - but when you think it costs at most a fraction of a penny
> > more per extra person in the car it soon builds up.
>
> To be fair we live in a rural area where car ownership is a nessecity, so
> insurance, road tax and a proportion of depreciation and repairs tend to be
> fixed costs, so when you are looking at alternatives for a particular
> journey train is often more expensive, just depends on what deal you can
> get, for example GNER were doing a £19 return to London from York
> pre-booked, but you try and actully find a train that they can be used on
> and has some seats available at this price, it's nearly impossible. Equally
> we are planning a trip to Rome later this year and the return fare from
> Teesside is about £79 each, this looks good value per mile.
>
> Mike D




I just dont know why anyone listens to what the SRA say.

All they spout are the ramblings of a dying organisation, full of
bullshit, waffle, stupid ideas and worse. This is equally as daft -
close railways, isolate communities with no buses and put more cars on
the road - that IS straegic thinking at its best.

Fortunately many have got their comeuppance and are dispatched to wreak
havoc on other parts of the civil service while others will move to the
DFT to impose their crackpot ideas there,

Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been hailed as a
success?  I cant.

"Grumpy Old Man"  wrote


> Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been hailed as a
> success?  I cant.


Letting Midland Mainline order 9-car Meridans?  ;-)

John.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:37:18 GMT, Stephen Hughes 
wrote:


>Mike D wrote:

>>  Our car does 50mpg most of the time and even with
>> diesel costing arround 4.30 a gallon this works out at a little less than
>> 10p per mile, plus wear and tear, say another 10p per mile,
>
>   I did a rough costing exercise a while back and it came out at more 
>than this for me, but then it depends just what you actually count as an 
>expense. For example, based on 1000 miles a month, I'm paying about 
>10p/mile for fuel, 10p/mile to repay the car loan, 3p/mile insurance, 
>1p/mile road tax and about 3p/mile for servicing / MOT / repairs. The 
>most variable thing there is the actual car cost - if you change your 
>car often it can be much higher, if you run it until it drops then this 
>value is much lower but then repairs will creep up a bit.


Mine has now done nearly seven years, covering 52,000 miles, and the
overall operating cost during that time has worked out at 39.4p/mile.

That's made up by:

Fuel 7.8p/mile
Services, tax and insurance 11.3p/mile
Depreciation 20.3p/mile.

Currently the fuel is working out at 9.6p/mile, getting about 42-43mpg
on diesel.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

>
> > * Halving the number of Cross Country trains to Newcastle
>
> No comment. I don't know how well loaded they are north of York. It
> does seem that the York to Newcastle corridor is very well catered
> for, and there might be some scope for reducing services.
>


I would just like to point out that one of these trains (per hour)
continues through to Edinburgh and as such provides the only through
Scotland trains for the likes of Leeds, Sheffield and Derby. Loadings
are consequently pretty good. The other Newcastle train (per hour)
provides much needed relief to the Edinburgh services.

Yes the York - Newcastle corridor is very well provided for, but only a
small proportion of passengers actually travel between these two
places. Most are going further and the train they are on will have no
alternative for their particular journey.

wrote in message 
news:1123357885.050801.243820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>I used to live in the North East and it always struck me how poor the
> local services were in the area in comparison to many others. For
> Sunderland (pop about 250,000 and Middlesbrough (pop about 150,000) not
> to have direct services to London is absurd. If, instead of the "cheap
> and nasty" Metro extension to Sunderland that was put in becasue that
> was all J*hn Pr*sc*tt would allow, the Newcastle - Sunderland line had
> been electrified at 25 kV, then some terminating GNER trains could have
> been extended from Newcastle to Sunderland and we would have had the
> basis for an electrified local service network.
>
> As for the luckless inhabitants of Morpeth: does any county town have
> such a poor service?


Matlock. Two-hourly service to Derby, no other service  :-)  ! And no, Derby 
is not the county town of Derbyshire.

Sean

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:41:23 +0100, "Sean Marshall"
 wrote:


>Matlock. Two-hourly service to Derby, no other service  :-)  ! And no, Derby 
>is not the county town of Derbyshire.


Nor is Lancaster of Lancashire, nor Buckingham of Buckinghamshire.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Grumpy Old Man (onemoregrumpyoldman@hotmail.com) said:

>
> Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been
> hailed as a success?  I cant.


The 20 year franchise for Chiltern, albiet under an old director who was 
ousted shortly after and replaced by the current madman.

-- 
Andrew

In article ,
   Grumpy Old Man  wrote:



> Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been hailed as a
> success?  I cant.


The Community Rail Service proposals ?  Lots of good ideas, although it's
probably still too early to classify as a success at this stage.

And the worst idea: Proposing to halve the Paddington-Bristol
Parkway-Cardiff service, when the parallel M4 is among the most congested
roads in the country.

David

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:03:57 +0100 someone who may be gwr4090
 wrote this:-


>And the worst idea: Proposing to halve the Paddington-Bristol
>Parkway-Cardiff service, when the parallel M4 is among the most congested
>roads in the country.


Possibly.

I would add a few others, for instance failing to supply extra
trains to compensate for the extended running times involved in
downgrading the upgrade of the WCML. I make no comment on whether
the dowgrade was a good idea or not.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:03:57 +0100, gwr4090 wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> In article ,
>    Grumpy Old Man  wrote:
> 
> > Can anyone think of anything [SRA] have done that has been hailed as a
> > success?  I cant.
> 
> The Community Rail Service proposals ?  Lots of good ideas, although it's
> probably still too early to classify as a success at this stage.


Too early to even say for certain that the ideas are good, IMO; in
cases like Grantham - Skegness we've only just seen the partnership
announced and we don't have any real idea what is being proposed. 

It could be good, it could be bad, it could well be totally
indifferent. Time will tell, of course.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

gwr4090  wrote:


>In article ,
>   Grumpy Old Man  wrote:
>
>
>> Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been hailed as a
>> success?  I cant.
>
>The Community Rail Service proposals ?  Lots of good ideas, although it's
>probably still too early to classify as a success at this stage.



The jury is still out on whether designating rail services as
"Community" is a means of supporting them and helping them succeed by
attracting many more passengers, or a means of eventually pushing the
financial burden on to local authorities who won't be able to find the
funds to keep them going from the Council Tax. 

So it could go either way.

Ross wrote:

> It could be good, it could be bad, it could well be totally
> indifferent. Time will tell, of course.


Depends on the support from the local councils IMO.

Take the Sheringham Line partnership, lots of support from Norfolk CC 
and have done an excellent job. The one for the Gt Yarmouth and 
Lowestoft lines is also quite good.

Where there are some others that aren't quite so motivated and are more 
talk than action.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:30:48 +0100, Darren wrote in
<42f7cf07$0$1241$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, seen in
uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> > It could be good, it could be bad, it could well be totally
> > indifferent. Time will tell, of course.
> 
> Depends on the support from the local councils IMO.
> 
> Take the Sheringham Line partnership, lots of support from Norfolk CC 
> and have done an excellent job. The one for the Gt Yarmouth and 
> Lowestoft lines is also quite good.


Aye, although that was the case before the national CRPs were thought
up; Norfolk is (thankfully) a pro-public transport council.

I think it's fair to say that the Norfolk lines would have been given
the local authority support even if the CRP idea hadn't been taken up
nationally.

 

> Where there are some others that aren't quite so motivated and are more 
> talk than action.


My worry is that councils will be very enthusiastic to take over
certain rles from the railway, will remain enthusiastic for a year or
two and will then lose interest, possibly when the guiding light
retires/leaves/is transferred to another department, something I think
we've all seen with other local authority controlled things in the
past. 

I think it's better to have mediocre provision of those rles (as so
often seen with the TOCs) than a total lack of interest (whoever is
responsible).

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:27:35 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>I would add a few others, for instance failing to supply extra
>trains to compensate for the extended running times involved in
>downgrading the upgrade of the WCML. I make no comment on whether
>the dowgrade was a good idea or not.


I'd add the mess that was made of CrossCountry, and the arrogant
ignorance of all of VT's attempts to get out of it.

I'd blame the XC retrenchments 50-50 on VT management and the "S"RA,
personally.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Andrew Bell"  wrote in message
news:f5KJe.84660$G8.49395@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Grumpy Old Man (onemoregrumpyoldman@hotmail.com) said:
> >
> > Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been
> > hailed as a success?  I cant.
>
> The 20 year franchise for Chiltern, albiet under an old director who was
> ousted shortly after and replaced by the current madman.


Who? at SRA or Chiltern? What does this mean?

TM

In article , gwr4090
 wrote:


> In article ,
>    Grumpy Old Man  wrote:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been hailed as a
> > success?  I cant.
> 
> The Community Rail Service proposals ?  Lots of good ideas, although it's
> probably still too early to classify as a success at this stage.
> 


but they are not the SRA's, they are mainly ACoRP/Paul Salveson's and the
main SRA CR guy Chris Austin, has moved over to ATOC

So watch for CR to decline in the DfT, even though David Hibbs has gone across.

AB

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 07:14:05 +0000 (UTC), wottoast@btopenworld.com
(Andy Bunburry) wrote:


>In article , gwr4090
> wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>>    Grumpy Old Man  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > Can anyone think of anything they have done that has been hailed as a
>> > success?  I cant.
>> 
>> The Community Rail Service proposals ?  Lots of good ideas, although it's
>> probably still too early to classify as a success at this stage.
>> 
>
>but they are not the SRA's, they are mainly ACoRP/Paul Salveson's and the
>main SRA CR guy Chris Austin, has moved over to ATOC
>
>So watch for CR to decline in the DfT, even though David Hibbs has gone across.


I think you're being unnecessarily pessimistic.

Take a look at the Esk Valley Line. ACoRP set up a development company
and found the funding for its staff. It is actively looking at
improving the infrastructure, and has secured funding for some of it.

A first tangible result of the company's work is the steam specials
which are operating this month: Grosmont -Whitby - Glaisdale - Whitby
- Glaisdale - Whitby - Grosmont. Tuesdays to Thursdays until 1st
September.

Expect that steam operation to be expanded in future.

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

Tony Miles (tonymiles@beeb.net) said:

> "Andrew Bell"  wrote in message
> news:f5KJe.84660$G8.49395@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Grumpy Old Man (onemoregrumpyoldman@hotmail.com) said:
> > >
> > > Can anyone think of anything they have done that has
> > > been hailed as a success?  I cant.
> >
> > The 20 year franchise for Chiltern, albiet under an old
> > director who was ousted shortly after and replaced by
> > the current madman.
>
> Who? at SRA or Chiltern? What does this mean?
>
> TM


Dissection:
The awarding of the 20 year Chiltern franchise was a good thing (IMO).
It was done under old SRA leadership.
Soon after new leadership was brought in.
The plans for 20-year franchises were scrapped under this new 
leadership.

-- 
Andrew

"Andrew Bell"  wrote:


>Tony Miles (tonymiles@beeb.net) said:
>> "Andrew Bell"  wrote in message
>> news:f5KJe.84660$G8.49395@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> > Grumpy Old Man (onemoregrumpyoldman@hotmail.com) said:
>> > >
>> > > Can anyone think of anything they have done that has
>> > > been hailed as a success?  I cant.
>> >
>> > The 20 year franchise for Chiltern, albiet under an old
>> > director who was ousted shortly after and replaced by
>> > the current madman.
>>
>> Who? at SRA or Chiltern? What does this mean?
>>
>> TM
>
>Dissection:
>The awarding of the 20 year Chiltern franchise was a good thing (IMO).
>It was done under old SRA leadership.
>Soon after new leadership was brought in.
>The plans for 20-year franchises were scrapped under this new 
>leadership.



The SRA has had three "leaderships".  The first leader was the
confrontational Sir Alastair Morton.  The second was the idiot Richard
Bowker.  The third was some faceless bureaucrat who replaced Bowker
while the SRA got dismantled.  

Which of the first two do you consider to be the "old SRA leadership"?
Morton or Bowker?

In article , Mike Roebuck
 wrote:



> >So watch for CR to decline in the DfT, even though David Hibbs has gone
across.
> 
> I think you're being unnecessarily pessimistic.
> 
> Take a look at the Esk Valley Line. ACoRP set up a development company
> and found the funding for its staff. It is actively looking at
> improving the infrastructure, and has secured funding for some of it.
> 
> A first tangible result of the company's work is the steam specials
> which are operating this month: Grosmont -Whitby - Glaisdale - Whitby
> - Glaisdale - Whitby - Grosmont. Tuesdays to Thursdays until 1st
> September.
> 
> Expect that steam operation to be expanded in future.


One small success out of a great many lines, and wonderful as Tony Smare
and the team are, this accounts for not a drop in the massive Northern
Rail subsidy. I am a great fan of CR, but in the scale of things, with the
DfT out to make truly massive cuts in expenditure, far more than hinted at
in the original post of this thread, CR is, sadly but realistically, a
mere backwater. CR-type lines have to increase trafic ten or more fold to
even begin to be noticeable, a great, but unachieveable goal. The huge
efforts of locals in painting stations and making publicity leaflets, paid
for out of counil tax as against national taxation, will not save
closures!!

Pessimist, yes, but in the medium term it is what the government wnats.

Someone asked on this thread what has the SRA done that is good? The SRA
is/was a non-departmental arm of government and as such does/did exactly
what government tells it to do - in most cases save expenditure. Now the
SRA is inside the DfT, a departmental arm of governement, those savings
can be master-minded and controlled that bit more easily. Expanding
railways, espeically in the north of England, is not government policy.

AB

AB

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:27ihf19uuhpeskf7nj9di70umjourard0i@4ax.com...

> "Andrew Bell"  wrote:
>
> >Tony Miles (tonymiles@beeb.net) said:
> >> "Andrew Bell"  wrote in message
> >> news:f5KJe.84660$G8.49395@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> > Grumpy Old Man (onemoregrumpyoldman@hotmail.com) said:
> >> > >
> >> > > Can anyone think of anything they have done that has
> >> > > been hailed as a success?  I cant.
> >> >
> >> > The 20 year franchise for Chiltern, albiet under an old
> >> > director who was ousted shortly after and replaced by
> >> > the current madman.
> >>
> >> Who? at SRA or Chiltern? What does this mean?
> >>
> >> TM
> >
> >Dissection:
> >The awarding of the 20 year Chiltern franchise was a good thing (IMO).
> >It was done under old SRA leadership.
> >Soon after new leadership was brought in.
> >The plans for 20-year franchises were scrapped under this new
> >leadership.
>
>
> The SRA has had three "leaderships".  The first leader was the
> confrontational Sir Alastair Morton.  The second was the idiot Richard
> Bowker.  The third was some faceless bureaucrat who replaced Bowker
> while the SRA got dismantled.
>
> Which of the first two do you consider to be the "old SRA leadership"?
> Morton or Bowker?


Thanks for asking that Tony - I was still trying to work it out myself!

TM

I've always enjoyed reading these threads every now and then - when the
SRA got a bit heavy (i.e. regularly) - it was always fun to read how I
really should have been doing it. I've never felt the need or desire to
contribute however but I am interested in something that was said in
this thread.

Someone out there clearly thinks 20 year franchises were a good idea.
They were not because the operators refused to invest equity so they
were actually a good way for the private sector to make a great deal of
money without taking any real risk. I have just written an article on
this in RAIL and I am currently writing a paper on the subject for
another economics journal. I would be genuinely interested to know if
any of you who have read the recent RAIL argument felt the argument I
made logical and convincing. This is a genuine bit of research and not
a wind up - if you have a different view, I would also be interested to
hear the justification behind it.

Richard

Tony Miles wrote:

> "Tony Polson"  wrote in message
> news:27ihf19uuhpeskf7nj9di70umjourard0i@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew Bell"  wrote:
> >
> > >Tony Miles (tonymiles@beeb.net) said:
> > >> "Andrew Bell"  wrote in message
> > >> news:f5KJe.84660$G8.49395@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > >> > Grumpy Old Man (onemoregrumpyoldman@hotmail.com) said:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Can anyone think of anything they have done that has
> > >> > > been hailed as a success?  I cant.
> > >> >
> > >> > The 20 year franchise for Chiltern, albiet under an old
> > >> > director who was ousted shortly after and replaced by
> > >> > the current madman.
> > >>
> > >> Who? at SRA or Chiltern? What does this mean?
> > >>
> > >> TM
> > >
> > >Dissection:
> > >The awarding of the 20 year Chiltern franchise was a good thing (IMO).
> > >It was done under old SRA leadership.
> > >Soon after new leadership was brought in.
> > >The plans for 20-year franchises were scrapped under this new
> > >leadership.
> >
> >
> > The SRA has had three "leaderships".  The first leader was the
> > confrontational Sir Alastair Morton.  The second was the idiot Richard
> > Bowker.  The third was some faceless bureaucrat who replaced Bowker
> > while the SRA got dismantled.
> >
> > Which of the first two do you consider to be the "old SRA leadership"?
> > Morton or Bowker?
>
> Thanks for asking that Tony - I was still trying to work it out myself!
> 
> TM

"Richard Bowker"  wrote in message
news:1123697526.802510.149900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> Someone out there clearly thinks 20 year franchises were a good idea.
> They were not because the operators refused to invest equity so they
> were actually a good way for the private sector to make a great deal of
> money without taking any real risk. I have just written an article on
> this in RAIL and I am currently writing a paper on the subject for
> another economics journal. I would be genuinely interested to know if
> any of you who have read the recent RAIL argument felt the argument I
> made logical and convincing. This is a genuine bit of research and not
> a wind up - if you have a different view, I would also be interested to
> hear the justification behind it.


well, firstly I'm sure the group is impressed that another "lurker" has put
his head over the parapet and admitted to being here! (You wouldn't believe
the number of managers who will discuss what they've read on here but would
never post themselves!)

I agree that the boasts of "investment" are often very hollow - how many
TOCs have boasted about how much THEY have invested in new rolling stock -
quoting the order value as their investment (and your former chums at Virgin
would be the worst culprits in this...!).

However are you saying that Chiltern is doing nothing other than raking in
the cash in its 20-year franchise? I note regular increases in the size of
the rolling stock fleet which may be funded by increased ticket sales but in
the event of things going pear-shaped would have to be leased out of other
group monies I presume?

In addition the problem with the 7-year deals appears to be that external
funding is difficult to find for such short-term businesses. The case in
point would be Virgin's attempt to seek external funding for extra car parks
or station upgrades. In the real world this may well be written off over 20
or 30 years but with Virgin's franchises ending in less than 12 years nobody
would apparently find the funding and nobody would look at a deal that would
pass to another operator if the franchise changed hands. If this is correct
then either 20 year deals have to be considered or nobody would do anything
"long termist" or the SRA should have worked to agree a way of funding work
that would be paid off over several franchises.

I'm not convinced by 7 years - maybe 10 years would have been a better
option - certainly 7 seems to be too short to initiate any plans and see
them through to delivery and reaping the benefits. Take electrification as
one example - suddenly the TOCs are finding that diesel may be getting more
& more expensive, analysts reckon 10 years before it os cheap again even
assuming supplies stay robust. We look over at Europe and find so many more
main lines are electrified and they all remark that we'll never get on with
electrifying the UK network if we are doing everything in 7 year spurts.
So - whilst as a nation we are probably looking very lame in thinking that
we'll just carry on burning the diesel whilst the rest of the world
economises - we are ordering and building more diesel trains (HST2 included)
rather than looking at a 20 year programme of electrification on main lines
and key routes like TransPennine etc. Would it not have been possible to
agree 20 year franchises that included migration to electric traction within
them with more emphasis placed on the project management of this work as
part of the deal?

Finally - because I'm supposed to be writing magazine stories tonight! -
during the whole time of the sSRA and the SRA proper nobody got round to
agreeing what the railways of the UK are for. This is a historical issue
which I discussed in Modern Railways two years ago - the railway historians
agree that nobody would ever get to grips with the UK railways until as a
nation we agreed what they are for! Are they a social railway that we pay
for out of our taxes at whatever they cost, are they an alternative to road
transport that must pay their own way or fail, are they a means of reducing
road congestion and pollution so we have to support them with grants etc.,
are they the way that a diverse population can work in the big cities and
enjoy leisure in the country, are they a better alternative than video
conferencing and "the home office"? etc.
If we decided this we could measure whether the government, SfT, SRA (as
was) etc. are delivering this railway - but currently everyone on charge can
hide behind the fact that nobody has really decided what they should be
delivering in the first place!

Was the SRA ever given a mission statememt - that could be written on one
side of an A4 piece of paper that actually said what the railways were
supposed to do and why?
If not I wonder if that was the mistake - I'd never start off without a very
specific brief (and apart from anything else, at the point a minister for
transport said anything that contradicted this brief I'd have been waving it
under the noses of the press within minutes!)

Back to the writing..
Tony

In article <dddjl7$opf$1$8300dec7@news.beeb.net>, "Tony Miles"
 wrote:


snip


> 
> Was the SRA ever given a mission statememt - that could be written on one
> side of an A4 piece of paper that actually said what the railways were
> supposed to do and why?
> If not I wonder if that was the mistake - I'd never start off without a very
> specific brief (and apart from anything else, at the point a minister for
> transport said anything that contradicted this brief I'd have been waving it
> under the noses of the press within minutes!)
> 
> Back to the writing..
> Tony



well said, Tony, sums it up well.

seems to me that the almost fanatical way in which everything Morton did
was undone by our new found lurker friend did the railways huge damage for
no reason other than mantra, a sad but typical action of many British
managers who undo their predcesssor's work to try and make it appear
he/she was useless and the new man has a powerful new broom. Long
franchises, properly managed, are clearly far better for a long term
industry like the railways than short term ones - in extremis look at the
trouble caused up north by ATN being on a rolling one year contract for,
was it, 3 or four years.

Sorry Richard, you tried your best, I am sure, but I would suggest you
were misguided, in respect of long franchises and also of micro-management
which earned you so meny "not friends".

And as for your comments in RAIL about Open Access, if Parliament passes a
Bill allowing such, and the ORR licences such, who is the SRA, as an arm
of government, to say the opposite. If Hull Trains, the flagship train
operator, has a good deal, that is great for it, and the railways, and
hooray that it puts the dreadful Garnett's nose out of joint.....(and for
Parliament to change the law if it does not like the outcome) More Open
Access would shake up the jobs-worth complacents in companies like First,
and GNER..... to say the GCR proposal to run Sunderland-KX sevrices would
make a "massive" extraction from GNER at Durham is just a tad of an
exaggeration, and surely it is for GNER to compete and make sure it does
not lose trade, rather than whining all the time?

A Bunburry

(If you have not got this, I am a Bunburry in town, but someone else in
the country,..... Osacar Wilde.... The Brighton Line.....)

In the desparate hope that Tony's response is typical and Mr Bunburry's
somewhat patronising and deeply misinformed rant is not, here goes.

The 20 year franchises that Alastair devised were not 20 years at all
but rather 4 lots of 5 years in sequence. The reason for this was
because the franchisees refused to take 20 year revenue risk in an
environment where so much was regulated. Well get rid of the regulation
you say! Fine, but that would have meant the market being the
determinant of which services ran and which did not and we would have
seen massive retrenchment of parts of the network. Also, lifting the
fares regulation would have also seen commercial pricing of tickets
rather than the current, artificially controlled mechanism. The long
held belief that the railways should always allow a turn up and go
ticket at a relaitvely low price is one of the reasons this fares
regulation exists.

In any event, no-one was prepared to take a 20 year punt, not after
what everyoone had seen happen following Hatfield. Not Chiltern, not
GNER, not anyone. And they were right not to do so. The 4x5 was
therefore a fudge to enable the perception of long term franchising
with the reality of short term risk taking. That was the model I
inherited Mr Bunburry, not a 20 year one. The 20 year franchise has
never existed.

In fact the franchise model I instituted is 8 - 10 years. 8 as a
minimum with 2 year automatic extension if the franchisee hits certain
targets. the reality (not the gricer gossip) is that the new franchise
model is actually MORE certain than the old one and MORE able to secure
longer term investment, not the other way round.

As to Tony's other points which are fair, the car park investment is a
good example. The technology to allow long term investments to be
underwritten by the SRA agreeing to ensure the obligation to pay passed
to the next franchisee has always existed. It simply required me to
determine the asset a Key Franchise Asset. I did so on many occasions.
When I refused to, it was simply because the deal represented a bad one
for the taxpayer. Remember though (and this is not a railway point, its
a finance point general) the length of the franchise is utterly
irrelevant if the franchisee refuses to invest equity in the business
because that is the only way that lenders will take risk on the company
or franchisee i.e. if they stand to lose money. That is true of every
contract and every lending or borrowing transaction in every capitalist
country on the planet. So no Tony, if it goes pear shaped on Chiltern,
there is no equity to be used up, the franchise would go insolvent very
quickly and a whole series of contracts designed to protect the
continual running of the service if the franchise went under would kick
in. Any franchisee would always have the option of investing equity at
that point but I absolutely guarnatee you that if the franchise was
already in financial difficulty, no franchise owner would. It would be
financial suicide. Better to let the business go under.

So no, it is complete nonsense to say that long term franchises are
clearly better for the railway than short term ones. It is only true if
the franchisees are prepared to invest equity and they are not. And why
not? Because all the regulation and consumer protection that elsewhere
on this site people rant on about ad nauseam so limits the franchisees
commercial freedom as to make it crazy to invest significant equity.

Tony - I shan't bother posting again on this but if you would like to
chat further and I can explain in more detail, the SRA know how to get
hold of me. The answer to your question on the Mission statement is
contained very clearly in s204 - 20 6 of the Transport Act 2000 and the
answer to what is the railway for is contained in a document the SRA
published in late 2003 called "Everyone's Railway"

Mr Bunburry - I suggest that Chris Garnett has done as much as anyone
over the last 10 years to drag this railway out of the operator led
malaise that BR left it in and turn it into a customer driven sector.
He would be the first to say there's a lot more to do but we're a darn
sight better off for having people like him. Being slightly less
offensive will probably win you more friends in future.

Richard

Tony Polson wrote:

>
> The third was some faceless bureaucrat who replaced Bowker
> while the SRA got dismantled.


No, he's got a face alright, I can see it on the SRA website -
<http://www.sra.gov.uk/who/exec_profiles/quarmby>.
-- 
Pat Ricroft, City of Salford, UK
================================

Richard Bowker (apapa@bowkerhome.com) said:

> In any event, no-one was prepared to take a 20 year punt,
> not after what everyoone had seen happen following
> Hatfield. Not Chiltern, not GNER, not anyone. And they
> were right not to do so. The 4x5 was therefore a fudge to
> enable the perception of long term franchising with the
> reality of short term risk taking. That was the model I
> inherited Mr Bunburry, not a 20 year one. The 20 year
> franchise has never existed.


Thank you for that detail. I perhaps miscorrectly linked the success (or 
perception of success) of Chiltern to the different and unique way their 
franchise was handled. Grass is always greener and all that.

I do still wonder though why franchieses are entrusted into the hands of 
those wishing to make as much profit as possible - most routes make a 
loss, hence subsidy, so somewhere along the line there is public money 
being used directly as dividend to shareholders. But that's a debate 
that has gone on, and on, and on.

-- 
Andrew

"Pat Ricroft"  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> The third was some faceless bureaucrat who replaced Bowker
>> while the SRA got dismantled.
>
>No, he's got a face alright, I can see it on the SRA website -
><http://www.sra.gov.uk/who/exec_profiles/quarmby>.



And a very nice chap he appears to be.

;-)

Richard Bowker wrote:

> In the desparate hope that Tony's response is typical and Mr Bunburry's
> somewhat patronising and deeply misinformed rant is not, here goes.

Snip
>
> Tony - I shan't bother posting again on this but if you would like to
> chat further and I can explain in more detail, the SRA know how to get
> hold of me. The answer to your question on the Mission statement is
> contained very clearly in s204 - 20 6 of the Transport Act 2000 and the
> answer to what is the railway for is contained in a document the SRA
> published in late 2003 called "Everyone's Railway"


Apologies for lack of faster reply - a day at the Test Match today was
better than this newsgroup and worse I have a major problem with my ISP
which seems to have a failed Newsgroup server!

Anyway - briefly:
a) I think there is a difference between Mission Statement and the
country actually deciding what the railways are for.. My "Railway
Historian" friends see nothing in recent documents that actually
resolve this very basic question.

but I'm happy to discuss this more when back from my hols - from
Saturday for a week.

b) Richard, because of all this ISP problem can you drop me an email to
my email address used on my previous post (the "beeb" one) and I'll
discuss further with you off the group back to your email.

Sorry to deal with this in a public NG - just not got time to get the
ISP problem resolved before the hols.

Regards
Tony