Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with 2003/4.
This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
into reverse.
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

"Joyce Whitchurch"  wrote in message 
news:4314C4B5.66A248A7@btinternet.com...

> Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
> lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with 2003/4.
> This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
> company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
> into reverse.


The public have realised how crap the trains/services is then?!

Tim

> The public have realised how crap the trains/services is then?!



Tim

'Operational research computerised allocation of tickets to services' 
has no relation to the number of passengers per train which still seems 
to me to be uncomfortably in excess of available capacity whenever I 
have no option but to use their b####y Voyagers.  :-)

Mark F

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

> Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
> lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with 2003/4.
> This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
> company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
> into reverse.
> --
> Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
> =================================
> Do something amazing. Give blood.
> <http://www.blood.co.uk/>



So what is their source of verification? Probably not Virgin
themselves, bet they used some prat with a clipboard at a station where
services had been diverted.

Do Transit have a website - Google turned up bugger all. Cant be much
of a magazine with no website. Please correct me and file a link.

As for the quote "continuing changes to the scope of the
company's operation" - what an utter load of bollx.

What changes have Virgin made? If anything they have been even more
stable on XC.

On 30 Aug 2005 14:43:04 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
 wrote:


>As for the quote "continuing changes to the scope of the
>company's operation" - what an utter load of bollx.
>
>What changes have Virgin made? If anything they have been even more
>stable on XC.


The removal of Liverpool from their network for a start.

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.

Ah, whinging scousers.....of course.

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

> Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
> lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with 2003/4.
> This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
> company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
> into reverse.


It doesn't give info on any changes to the distance travelled by the 
average VXC passenger does it?

On 30 Aug 2005 14:43:04 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
 wrote:



>Do Transit have a website - Google turned up bugger all. Cant be much
>of a magazine with no website. 


I think (from the handful of copies I've come across in the past) it's
aimed at people in the transport industry, not the general market.
It's not sold through shops etc, so it doesn't really need to try to
market itself to the general public. I know a transport planning
consultant who reads it, but people on platform ends probably don't.


>Please correct me and file a link.


http://landor.co.uk/transit/ 

-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

"Grumpy Old Man"  wrote in message
news:1125438183.985357.257850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
> > Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
> > lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with 2003/4.
> > This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
> > company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
> > into reverse.
> > --
> > Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
> > =================================
> > Do something amazing. Give blood.
> > <http://www.blood.co.uk/>
>
>
> So what is their source of verification? Probably not Virgin
> themselves, bet they used some prat with a clipboard at a station where
> services had been diverted.
>
> Do Transit have a website - Google turned up bugger all. Cant be much
> of a magazine with no website. Please correct me and file a link.
>
> As for the quote "continuing changes to the scope of the
> company's operation" - what an utter load of bollx.
>
> What changes have Virgin made? If anything they have been even more
> stable on XC.
>


According to the actual article, its the SRA's National Trends 2004/5.

Mark Annand wrote:

> 
> Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
> > Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
> > lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with 2003/4.
> > This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
> > company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
> > into reverse.
> 
> It doesn't give info on any changes to the distance travelled by the
> average VXC passenger does it?


Well that's the point, isn't it? What we're seeing is a change in the
number of journeys /attributed/ to VXC, as opposed to CT, or GNER, or
SWT, or indeed VWC.

If you put on a load of extra trains on a route that already has a fair
number of passengers, then ORCATS will attribute a load of extra
journeys to your TOC. And hey presto, we have a "40 per cent rise in
patronage". Fast forward to 2004/5, after the axe has been taken to
certain VXC routes, and we have a "20 per cent drop in patronage". All
smoke and mirrors, unless of course you're on a percentage of turnover.
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

The Absent Minded Professor wrote:

> 
> According to the actual article, its the SRA's National Trends 2004/5.


Indeed so. These can be downloaded (in pdf format) from
<http://www.sra.gov.uk/publications>. And specifically,
<http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/performance_statistics/Nat_trends_yearbook/Nat_Year.pdf>
(download it first, then open it - the SRA website is not good with pdf
files).
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:33:48 GMT, mark  wrote:

>
>'Operational research computerised allocation of tickets to services' 
>has no relation to the number of passengers per train which still seems 
>to me to be uncomfortably in excess of available capacity whenever I 
>have no option but to use their b####y Voyagers.  :-)
>

After a truly horrendous weekend journey from Oxford to Wakefield and
back soon after Operation Princess or whatever it was called, I vowed
never to travel VXC again unless there was absolutely no alternative.
I suspect I'm not the only passenger to react in this way.

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

"Joyce Whitchurch"  wrote in message
news:4314E4F0.FE115320@btinternet.com...

> Mark Annand wrote:
> >
> > Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
> > > Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
> > > lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with
2003/4.
> > > This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
> > > company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
> > > into reverse.
> >
> > It doesn't give info on any changes to the distance travelled by the
> > average VXC passenger does it?
>
> Well that's the point, isn't it? What we're seeing is a change in the
> number of journeys /attributed/ to VXC, as opposed to CT, or GNER, or
> SWT, or indeed VWC.
>
> If you put on a load of extra trains on a route that already has a fair
> number of passengers, then ORCATS will attribute a load of extra
> journeys to your TOC. And hey presto, we have a "40 per cent rise in
> patronage". Fast forward to 2004/5, after the axe has been taken to
> certain VXC routes, and we have a "20 per cent drop in patronage". All
> smoke and mirrors, unless of course you're on a percentage of turnover.


No smoke on virgin trains for years!  And only mirrors if you can bear the
stench in the loos!

:-)

Seriously, I take your point.

Michael

Grumpy Old Man wrote:

> Ah, whinging scousers.....of course.


That's a disgraceful stereotype of some of the cheerfullest people I
have met. The word you were looking for is "thieving".

Ian

The message <MLcRe.273$84.233@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>
from "Michael Hopkins"  contains these words:


> No smoke on virgin trains for years!


You weren't on Platform 14 at ManPicc the day a passing Voyager reduced
visibility to 25 yards.  And the stench lingered for ages afterwards.

The driver who was taking over the train didn't seem too impressed,
either.  His language was more restrained than mine would have been...

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

David Jackson  writes:


> You weren't on Platform 14 at ManPicc the day a passing Voyager reduced
> visibility to 25 yards.  And the stench lingered for ages afterwards.


Isn't that the sort of thing which the HSE should be regulating (as it
is injurious to health) rather all the nannying petty safety rules it
does impose?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:55:17 +0100, Graham Murray
 wrote:


>Isn't that the sort of thing which the HSE should be regulating (as it
>is injurious to health) rather all the nannying petty safety rules it
>does impose?


Try BNS after 3 of the things have been idling there for an hour, and
the passengers can't go from the platform as they are awaiting a
delayed train.  CO levels must have been dangerous.

There needs to be a mod that automatically stops the engines after,
say, 10 minutes of sitting idle with doors locked and no driver keyed
in - or just an "off" button and a strict instruction for its use.

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.

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

> Also in "Transit" this week: it would appear that Virgin CrossCountry
> lost 20 per cent of their patronage during 2004/5, compared with 2003/4.
> This is apparently due to "continuing changes to the scope of the
> company's operation". Or IOW, the mother of all ORCATS raids has gone
> into reverse.
> --
> Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
> =================================
> Do something amazing. Give blood.
> <http://www.blood.co.uk/>


Is that 20% of the fabled 40% they used to crow about as the increase
in patronage to excuse the fact that their trains were 50% shorter?

Paul Sherwin wrote:

> 
> After a truly horrendous weekend journey from Oxford to Wakefield and
> back soon after Operation Princess or whatever it was called, I vowed
> never to travel VXC again unless there was absolutely no alternative.


It rapidly became known in the industry as Operation Pumpkin....

I've just done 3.5 hours on a Voyager with no air-con, no buffet and
just one working toilet. The alternative would normally have been a mix
of FGW and Arriva Wales, but that plan was scuppered by today's
unfortunate incident at Southall.
-- 
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Do something amazing. Give blood.
<http://www.blood.co.uk/>

Joyce Whitchurch wrote:

> The Absent Minded Professor wrote:
> >
> > According to the actual article, its the SRA's National Trends 2004/5.
>
> Indeed so. These can be downloaded (in pdf format) from
> <http://www.sra.gov.uk/publications>.


Well, well. Most interesting. Looks like 'Transit' got it wrong.
According to 'National Trends', page 108, VXC clocked up 19.3 million
passenger journeys in 2004/5, a shade higher than in the previous year
(+0.6pc in fact).

At a guess, I'd say someone mistook a nine for a five - I hope they
never get a job in Air Traffic Control!

Anyway, it did seem a bit rum, the rest of the industry averaging 7 per
cent growth and /only/ VXC losing custom.

For the record, the fastest growing TOC last year was South West
Trains, with passenger journeys up by 12.6 per cent.

Did someone ask about passenger kilometres? According to the SRA, VXC
/did/ go into reverse here, down by 4.7 per cent compared with 2003/4.
-- 
Pat Ricroft, City of Salford, UK
================================

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:4315ee1e.1550329@news.tesco.net...

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:55:17 +0100, Graham Murray
>  wrote:
>
>>Isn't that the sort of thing which the HSE should be regulating (as it
>>is injurious to health) rather all the nannying petty safety rules it
>>does impose?
>
> Try BNS after 3 of the things have been idling there for an hour, and
> the passengers can't go from the platform as they are awaiting a
> delayed train.  CO levels must have been dangerous.
>
> There needs to be a mod that automatically stops the engines after,
> say, 10 minutes of sitting idle with doors locked and no driver keyed
> in - or just an "off" button and a strict instruction for its use.


Don't some HSTs (GNER's at least that I know of, not so sure about 
MML/FGW/NR) automatically drop down to one bank of cylinders if they've sat 
idle for a while?

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:56:27 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>Don't some HSTs (GNER's at least that I know of, not so sure about 
>MML/FGW/NR) automatically drop down to one bank of cylinders if they've sat 
>idle for a while?


They may well - but "off" would be a better choice for a unit sitting
idle for some hours with no passengers on board (so the full aircon is
not required).

Either that or BNS's ventilation needs to be converted to run the full
length of the platforms rather than just in one or two locations where
locos would otherwise have been.

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.

"Rich Mackin"  wrote in message 
news:vM4Se.5833$w4.3788@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...


> Don't some HSTs (GNER's at least that I know of, not so sure about 
> MML/FGW/NR) automatically drop down to one bank of cylinders if they've 
> sat idle for a while?


FGW's Angel Trains-owned fleet with Valentas also have this mod. It is 
fitted on GNER's Angel fleet, but has recently been isolated.