This service, new in 2002, carries the reputation that it got off to a 
better than expected start in the early days, with passenger numbers 
building quickly. Is anyone here able to paint a picture of how it is 
doing now that it has been around for a few years?

Thanks

Mark

Mark Annand wrote:

> Is anyone here able to paint a picture of how it is 
> doing now that it has been around for a few years?



A victim of its own success I think (or more likely now a Victim of One) 
with the 2-car 170s being used not adequate for peak loadings, and no 
hope in hell of getting extra carriages. (until the end of One at least)

Darren wrote:

> Mark Annand wrote:
> 
>> Is anyone here able to paint a picture of how it is doing now that it 
>> has been around for a few years?
> 
> 
> 
> A victim of its own success I think (or more likely now a Victim of One) 
> with the 2-car 170s being used not adequate for peak loadings, and no 
> hope in hell of getting extra carriages. (until the end of One at least)


Good grief, capacity constrained in the peaks? Do you have an idea of 
offpeak loadings?

Mark

"Mark Annand" wrote:


> Good grief, capacity constrained in the peaks? Do you have an idea of
> offpeak loadings?


Has always loaded reasonably well in Standard when I take this service -
usually on a Saturday. First is usually almost empty, however.

I guess loadings 'spike' for 7.30-9.00 M-F arrivals into Norwich? Is there
much commuter traffic the other way, from Norfolk stations to Cambridge?

Incidentally, is this really a 'new' service? I thought Norwich - Cambridge
was a regular service pattern, operated by class 101 DMUs, well into the
1980s?

Chris

"Chris Read"  wrote in message
news:delc4n$svu$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...


> Incidentally, is this really a 'new' service? I thought Norwich -
Cambridge
> was a regular service pattern, operated by class 101 DMUs, well into the
> 1980s?


Most services in the 70s and 80s involved a change at Ely.

Adrian

"Darren"  wrote in message
news:430e0caa$0$97126$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

>
> A victim of its own success I think (or more likely now a Victim of One)
> with the 2-car 170s being used not adequate for peak loadings, and no
> hope in hell of getting extra carriages. (until the end of One at least)


Yet, conversely, Chiltern have no problems with ordering additional
Turbostar vehicles when they are required.

In article <jjCPe.521$09.129@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, "Jack Taylor"
 wrote:


> "Darren"  wrote in message
> news:430e0caa$0$97126$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> >
> > A victim of its own success I think (or more likely now a Victim of One)
> > with the 2-car 170s being used not adequate for peak loadings, and no
> > hope in hell of getting extra carriages. (until the end of One at least)
> 
> Yet, conversely, Chiltern have no problems with ordering additional
> Turbostar vehicles when they are required.



the frnachise agreements are totally different and it is unfair to slag
off One for what is not its fault. Chiltern is a long franchise and the
additional stock are built into the contract. One is a new-style short
contract, and it operates precisely what the SRA/DfT tells it to, do not
blame One if its trains are full and crowded, it cannot get more even if
it wants to.

AB

"Andy Bunburry"  wrote in message
news:wottoast-2608051312210001@dial81-131-191-86.in-addr.btopenworld.com...

>
> the frnachise agreements are totally different and it is unfair to slag
> off One for what is not its fault. Chiltern is a long franchise and the
> additional stock are built into the contract.


ITYF that the franchise requirement has long since been satisfied. New
vehicles continue to be ordered because the business case for them stacks
up. If we believe what we are told about Norwich - Cambridge loadings then
one suspects that the business case will also be made there. The SRA have,
historically, had their head in the sand (or elsewhere?) regarding new or
reallocated stock, hopefully the DfT will develop a more pragmatic approach.

Replying to "the franchise agreements are totally different and it is
unfair to slag off 'one' for what is not its fault."

I don't understand how the SRA/DfT can prevent a TOC from buying extra
vehicles to make its trains longer, providing that the platforms are
long enough etc. Surely this is the one area where a TOC still can
speculate to accumulate.

If the TOC thinks it can make money out of leasing an extra carriage
and paying for the maintenance and track access charges then it should
go ahead.

The SRA/DfT would only get involved if it required them to fund the
service or if it affected the 'bottom line' of the TOC's buxiness.

In 'one's case the government get the premium payment and either a
share of extra profits or subsidise unexpected dip in profits.

The problem for a TOC like 'one' is that they would take the risk but
only get half of the profit and worse still for them, the government
would probably not be willing to make up the loss if profit didn't meet
target.

So, in summary, they are legally free to extend the trains but not
financially free.

Jerry A.

In article ,
"Jerry"  wrote:


> Replying to "the franchise agreements are totally different and it is
> unfair to slag off 'one' for what is not its fault."
> 
> I don't understand how the SRA/DfT can prevent a TOC from buying extra
> vehicles to make its trains longer, providing that the platforms are
> long enough etc. Surely this is the one area where a TOC still can
> speculate to accumulate.
> 
> If the TOC thinks it can make money out of leasing an extra carriage
> and paying for the maintenance and track access charges then it should
> go ahead.
> 
> The SRA/DfT would only get involved if it required them to fund the
> service or if it affected the 'bottom line' of the TOC's buxiness.
> 
> In 'one's case the government get the premium payment and either a
> share of extra profits or subsidise unexpected dip in profits.
> 
> The problem for a TOC like 'one' is that they would take the risk but
> only get half of the profit and worse still for them, the government
> would probably not be willing to make up the loss if profit didn't meet
> target.
> 
> So, in summary, they are legally free to extend the trains but not
> financially free.
> 
> Jerry A.


No, sorry, in almost every case the cost of acquiring and running an extra
set greatly outweighs the REXTRA revenue that would be generated, so the
subsidy would rise or the premium decline. Just look at the Virgin case
for more Voyager cars, the WYPTE's for more emus, and the MML 9-car 222
farago.

The SRA/DfT controls precisely which units a TOC has, and allows no
variation without a great deal of fuss. The TOCs may theoretcically be
legally free to order what they want, but they are not going to do that
without somoen else picking up the tab.

AB

In article
,
wottoast@btopenworld.com (Andy Bunburry) wrote:


> In article ,
> "Jerry"  wrote:
> 
> > Replying to "the franchise agreements are totally different and it is
> > unfair to slag off 'one' for what is not its fault."
> > 

<snip>

adding to my own thought, of course TOCs don't buy trains, because of the
very short franchise periods they are clearly not going to buy 30-year
asets which, at most, will be guarenteed use on thier lines for 5
years.... ROSCOs buy trains and TOCs lease them, and ROSCOs won't buy
trains and lease them unless they are guarenteed rental income for at
least, say, 15 years... and the only body who can make that guarentee is
the SRA/DfT, who wnn't if it means them paying any money, either to the
TOC by way of subsidy to run them, or the Rosco....

so nuffun happens, a fall out of the policy of short franchsies, debated
here a few weeks back and totally totally.... censored!! 
AB

In message 
, 
at 11:27:50 on Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Andy Bunburry 
 remarked:

>adding to my own thought, of course TOCs don't buy trains, because of the
>very short franchise periods they are clearly not going to buy 30-year
>asets which, at most, will be guarenteed use on thier lines for 5
>years.... ROSCOs buy trains and TOCs lease them, and ROSCOs won't buy
>trains and lease them unless they are guarenteed rental income for at
>least, say, 15 years... and the only body who can make that guarentee is
>the SRA/DfT, who wnn't if it means them paying any money, either to the
>TOC by way of subsidy to run them, or the Rosco....
>
>so nuffun happens, a fall out of the policy of short franchsies, debated
>here a few weeks back and totally totally.... censored!!


Although sometimes the situation isn't quite like that. The 9-car 
Meridians, for example, are already bought and sit rotting in a siding, 
because no-one is allowed to lease them.

There is a danger that some old stock will also rot in sidings (HSTs 
replaced by Meridians and Voyagers, for example). There's no need for 
the ROSCO to "buy" these trains as they already own them.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article , Roland
Perry  wrote:



> Although sometimes the situation isn't quite like that. The 9-car 
> Meridians, for example, are already bought and sit rotting in a siding, 
> because no-one is allowed to lease them.
> 


true, but this ANOTHER example of the SRA changing its mind.. it allowed
MML to order them thru thew Rosco as part of a franchise extension
contract, and then when it was too late denied all knowledge...



> There is a danger that some old stock will also rot in sidings (HSTs 
> replaced by Meridians and Voyagers, for example). There's no need for 
> the ROSCO to "buy" these trains as they already own them.


I don't understand what you mean here, old stock has to go for scrap
sometime, especially when new stock is authorised to take its place.

AB

In message 
, 
at 14:19:56 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Andy Bunburry 
 remarked:

>> There is a danger that some old stock will also rot in sidings (HSTs
>> replaced by Meridians and Voyagers, for example). There's no need for
>> the ROSCO to "buy" these trains as they already own them.
>
>I don't understand what you mean here, old stock has to go for scrap
>sometime, especially when new stock is authorised to take its place.


But not when the "old" stock is better at the job than something 
currently in use. By all means pension off the very worst and oldest, 
but I doubt if any HSTs are close to that definition (but are still in 
danger of being left to rot).
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:+7gUwxuZXHFDFA7L@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message
> ,
> at 14:19:56 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Andy Bunburry
>  remarked:
> >> There is a danger that some old stock will also rot in sidings (HSTs
> >> replaced by Meridians and Voyagers, for example). There's no need for
> >> the ROSCO to "buy" these trains as they already own them.
> >
> >I don't understand what you mean here, old stock has to go for scrap
> >sometime, especially when new stock is authorised to take its place.
>
> But not when the "old" stock is better at the job than something
> currently in use. By all means pension off the very worst and oldest,
> but I doubt if any HSTs are close to that definition (but are still in
> danger of being left to rot).


If nobody wants to pay for them the ROSCOs still have to fund keeping them
dry and warm - which is costly through the winter. If they don't think they
have a market for them they have the right to cut them up. We may not like
that - but that's a different issue, in the harsh world of business they
aren't in it for charity etc.

TM

In message <df2ju0$i4d$1$8300dec7@news.beeb.net>, at 22:43:28 on Tue, 30 
Aug 2005, Tony Miles  remarked:

>> >I don't understand what you mean here, old stock has to go for scrap
>> >sometime, especially when new stock is authorised to take its place.
>>
>> But not when the "old" stock is better at the job than something
>> currently in use. By all means pension off the very worst and oldest,
>> but I doubt if any HSTs are close to that definition (but are still in
>> danger of being left to rot).
>
>If nobody wants to pay for them the ROSCOs still have to fund keeping them
>dry and warm - which is costly through the winter. If they don't think they
>have a market for them they have the right to cut them up. We may not like
>that - but that's a different issue, in the harsh world of business they
>aren't in it for charity etc.


The issue here is not whether there's a market for them, but why the SRA 
*prevents* there being a market by refusing to allow ToCs to rent them 
(which would prevent them rotting in the first place).
-- 
Roland Perry

In article , Roland
Perry  wrote:



> 
> The issue here is not whether there's a market for them, but why the SRA 
> *prevents* there being a market by refusing to allow ToCs to rent them 
> (which would prevent them rotting in the first place).


Because (the greater part of) the rental and running costs would come out
of taxpayers money, which the SRA/goivernment quite rightly won't allow. I
am not sure you see the process. Roscos own trains, TOCs hire them and
take revenue from tickets. rarely does revenue exceed costs and thus the
balance comes in the form of subsidy payments from the SRA/DfT, which are
funded by the taxpayers. If a TOC wnated to run a slam-door non-DDA
compliant 25-year old HST it would need (a lot of) money from government,
ie the taxpayer, the vast majority of whoim never go near a train.....
that's if there is a amrket for such an offer, paths and platform space.

AB

In message 
, 
at 06:59:35 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Andy Bunburry 
 remarked:


>> The issue here is not whether there's a market for them, but why the SRA
>> *prevents* there being a market by refusing to allow ToCs to rent them
>> (which would prevent them rotting in the first place).
>
>Because (the greater part of) the rental and running costs would come out
>of taxpayers money, which the SRA/goivernment quite rightly won't allow.


Yes, I understand that, but I'm complaining that the SRA is bringing the 
whole train system into disrepute because the travelling public aren't 
told that it's the SRA's stranglehold (rather than the ToC's indolence) 
which is preventing improvements to the service.


>I am not sure you see the process.


I do. (But I'm sure the general travelling public don't).


>Roscos own trains, TOCs hire them and
>take revenue from tickets. rarely does revenue exceed costs and thus the
>balance comes in the form of subsidy payments from the SRA/DfT, which are
>funded by the taxpayers. If a TOC wnated to run a slam-door non-DDA
>compliant 25-year old HST it would need (a lot of) money from government,


Or a nice newly refurbished RIO HST?

-- 
Roland Perry