For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service on 
Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many 
passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?

CT can get away with this as the half hourly service is outside of PSR, kick 
started by Notts County Council funding, although responsibility/funding was 
taken by SRA.

David

Isn't this just typical of CT's utter disregard of they 'customers'?
Many a time I have travelled on the Derby to Matlock line (another CT
outpost) only for the train to be turned back at Ambergate if it's
running late.
Sod the people waiting further on! CT end up with good punctuality
figures

David Thornhill wrote:

> For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service on
> Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many
> passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?
>
> CT can get away with this as the half hourly service is outside of PSR, kick
> started by Notts County Council funding, although responsibility/funding was
> taken by SRA.
> 
> David

"David Thornhill"  wrote in message 
news:wOoTe.4368$Aa1.844@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

> For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service 
> on Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many 
> passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?
>

Surely the point is that because of the single-line, the timetable only just 
fits in. If the half-hourly service is attempted then it could end up 
totally unreliable.

The  real answer is to do what other European Railways do and fit multiple 
units with controllable magnetic track brakes (like on Sheffield trams). 
Then defensive driving becomes unneccesary.

Peter Fox

"Peter Fox"  wrote in message 
news:dfm7vu$mlu$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "David Thornhill"  wrote in message 
> news:wOoTe.4368$Aa1.844@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service 
>> on Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many 
>> passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?
>>
> Surely the point is that because of the single-line, the timetable only 
> just fits in. If the half-hourly service is attempted then it could end up 
> totally unreliable.
>


I cannot remember previous years being a problem.

I suspect it is more to do with RHL not having dedicated crews/units. For 
any one train the driver could be off one route, conductor off another and 
unit appears from a third direction. With leaf fall timetable revisions on 
other routes I accept this complex jigsaw may fall apart. But that is for CT 
to solve, not follow their usual policy of just not bothering to run trains.

The single track does have a loop which so far as I know is never used. Why 
not I wonder? Surely the signalling is up to it?

Going back a couple of years, flexibility on line was restricted due to a 
poorly positioned signal at south end of line. I'm not sure that was ever 
corrected.

David

David Thornhill wrote:

> "Peter Fox"  wrote in message
> news:dfm7vu$mlu$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "David Thornhill"  wrote in message
> > news:wOoTe.4368$Aa1.844@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >> For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service
> >> on Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many
> >> passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?
> >>
> > Surely the point is that because of the single-line, the timetable only
> > just fits in. If the half-hourly service is attempted then it could end up
> > totally unreliable.
> >
>
> I cannot remember previous years being a problem.
>

Well, according to West Yorkshire PTE (www.wymetro.co), the Penistone
Line will have a revised timetable from 19th September, for the leaf
fall season. Last year they were double-blocking trains over the single
line, causing absolute chaos to the timetable (and complaints which
reached Westminster). I'll be very interested to see what they've got
planned for this year.


-- 
Regards

Mike

Mike Roebuck wrote:

> >
> Well, according to West Yorkshire PTE (www.wymetro.co),


Sorry, that link should be: www.wymetro.com


-- 
Regards

Mike

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:33:00 GMT, David Thornhill wrote in
<wOoTe.4368$Aa1.844@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:


> For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service on 
> Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many 
> passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?


Nothing new there, then. No doubt we'll also see off-peak Nottingham -
Lincoln trains missing out all the "halts" on the spurious grounds of
keeping the peak hour service punctual.

CT is as concerned about its customers as the Royal Mail is. It isn't.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

now now, Ross. I thought you told me there had been a significant
improvement of late ?
Kester

In article <dfm7vu$mlu$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Peter
Fox  writes

>The  real answer is to do what other European Railways do and fit multiple 
>units with controllable magnetic track brakes (like on Sheffield trams). 
>Then defensive driving becomes unneccesary.


These can be somewhat fierce
I was on a Centro tram which had to apply its emergency brake to avoid a
cyclist. One poor chap who was standing was flung to the floor requiring
Hospital treatment.  
-- 
Alan

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:04:45 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>CT is as concerned about its customers as the Royal Mail is. It isn't.


I would be unsurprised if the cut serves two purposes, the other one
being to see if the cut would bring mass uproar or not.  If not, it
might stay, as the trams have stolen a lot of their passengers.  It
has already resulted in Trent Buses giving up on a good few services.

I would not be at all surprised if, Metrolink aside, the cut on the
Oldham Loop had a similar purpose.  Fortunately for the people of
Oldham (who, I understand, mostly don't want trams), it did cause
uproar, and the old TT was reinstated.

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.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:33:00 GMT, "David Thornhill"
 wrote:


>For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service on 
>Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many 
>passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?
>
>CT can get away with this as the half hourly service is outside of PSR, kick 
>started by Notts County Council funding, although responsibility/funding was 
>taken by SRA.
>

David

Were you convinced by the explanation for this given by John Hilman at
the EMPTUF meeting? I got the distinct impression from him and Nick
Brown that as far as National Express are concerned cutting costs come
first and passengers' interests come a very poor second.

I can see some benefits for Lincolnshire in splitting the Skegness -
Crewe service into Skegness - Nottingham and Derby - Crewe from
December. However I doubt if giving a better service to Skegness is
really the reason for the split despite what was said. Getting ready
for the split up of Central Trains is more likely.

South Wigston suffered badly when changes were made between Leicester
and Birmingham and I fear the same is going to happen for the stations
between Derby and Nottingham. What do you think?

David Harby
Lincoln

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:48:44 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:04:45 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >CT is as concerned about its customers as the Royal Mail is. It isn't.
> 
> I would be unsurprised if the cut serves two purposes, the other one
> being to see if the cut would bring mass uproar or not.  If not, it
> might stay, as the trams have stolen a lot of their passengers.  It
> has already resulted in Trent Buses giving up on a good few services.


I wouldn't be all that surprised. At the moment crewing RHL services
is easy as Nottingham is some 30 drivers over-establishment, but
there's a strong rumour that the surplus will be dealt with in the
traditional fashion (by getting rid of those whose records allow it
and whose faces don't fit), and given that some RHL workings are/were
crewed by Norwich based crews (I kid ye not), knocking a few on the
head will allow a more resilient timetable and for work to be
reallocated solely to Nottingham while at the same time reducing staff
numbers there.

 

> I would not be at all surprised if, Metrolink aside, the cut on the
> Oldham Loop had a similar purpose.  Fortunately for the people of
> Oldham (who, I understand, mostly don't want trams), it did cause
> uproar, and the old TT was reinstated.


I suspect that the local authorities won't be quiet where the RHL is
concerned; both Derbys and Notts CCs have quite a lot invested in the
social effects of the RHL.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On 7 Sep 2005 10:16:12 -0700, Kesterj@mail.interware.hu wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:


> now now, Ross. I thought you told me there had been a significant
> improvement of late ?


There's been a significant improvement in the actual running of the
trains. The company's attitude, OTOH...

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:21:54 GMT, David Harby wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[....]

> I can see some benefits for Lincolnshire in splitting the Skegness -
> Crewe service into Skegness - Nottingham and Derby - Crewe from
> December. However I doubt if giving a better service to Skegness is
> really the reason for the split despite what was said. Getting ready
> for the split up of Central Trains is more likely.


The original plan was going to be Derby - Crewe and Skegness -
Matlock, with various bits of extra recovery time to improve
punctuality on the Skegs. That was planned before the split was
mooted, but what the reasoning behind the current plans are is
anyone's guess.

Don't know if it was mentioned, but senior CT management are quietly
confident that there will be a franchise extension [1], although
they're not saying whether they think it will be for one or two years.



[1] Or at least they were when they visited Lincoln to see the site of
the new barrier gate lines a few weeks ago.
-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:45:52 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:21:54 GMT, David Harby wrote in
>, seen in uk.railway:
>
>[....]
>> I can see some benefits for Lincolnshire in splitting the Skegness -
>> Crewe service into Skegness - Nottingham and Derby - Crewe from
>> December. However I doubt if giving a better service to Skegness is
>> really the reason for the split despite what was said. Getting ready
>> for the split up of Central Trains is more likely.
>
>The original plan was going to be Derby - Crewe and Skegness -
>Matlock, with various bits of extra recovery time to improve
>punctuality on the Skegs. That was planned before the split was
>mooted, but what the reasoning behind the current plans are is
>anyone's guess.
>
>Don't know if it was mentioned, but senior CT management are quietly
>confident that there will be a franchise extension [1], although
>they're not saying whether they think it will be for one or two years.
>
>
>
>[1] Or at least they were when they visited Lincoln to see the site of
>the new barrier gate lines a few weeks ago.


Nick Brown made a lot of the fact that the break up was announced a
year ago but there has still not been any announcement of how this
will be done. He then pointed out that the franchise expires in a few
months. The implication was that as there is hardly enough time left
now to specify a new franchise and get it awarded before the Central
franchise runs out.

My cynical view is that Darling announced the split up without
consulting anyone who knew about the franchise and has now found  that
the split up is likely to cost more (unless of course they reduce
services).

David

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:39:33 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>
>I suspect that the local authorities won't be quiet where the RHL is
>concerned; both Derbys and Notts CCs have quite a lot invested in the
>social effects of the RHL.


They didn't sound very pleased yesterday afternoon. Someone, I think
from Notts CC, asked if Central were going to put on extra carriages
to make up for the 50% reduction in service.  You can guess the answer
without me needing to tell you. Platforms are only two carriages long
I gather.

Someone asked why Central cannot run a train every 45 minutes or
similar, why reduce the service to hourly? The explanation was 'too
difficult'. I understood that to mean 'we can't be bothered to spend
the time trying to work out paths/crew diagrams'

David

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:45:52 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>
>The original plan was going to be Derby - Crewe and Skegness -
>Matlock, with various bits of extra recovery time to improve
>punctuality on the Skegs. That was planned before the split was
>mooted, but what the reasoning behind the current plans are is
>anyone's guess.
>

If I remember correctly something was said about Crewe - Derby being
tied in with the Matlock service.

David

Commenting on latest posts on thread.

Re EMPTUF David. I thought CT's responses totally unacceptable - indeed, I 
was probably out of order cutting across chair, but it used to be same at 
RPC where the TOCs gave bland corporate responses yet nobody questioned the 
'non' answers. The Notts County Council rep was close to incandescent with 
anger, mainly because he knew nothing of this cut to RHL. All of us have 
lost track as to just how the half hourly service is funded currently. And 
with local RPC gone, SRA gone and DfT probably not remotely interested, who 
do you turn to? I don't think NCC (City and County) will take this quietly 
though.

I think the 'too difficult' answer is often the real reason. With Nottingham 
west end at capacity everything needs to fit into its slot. Rather than 
juggle everything to accommodate service changes, it is expedient to cancel 
a few trains and stuff the passenger. To be fair, all the skilled 
timers/diagrammers who could probably provide the perfect solution with one 
eye, the other eye simultaneously reading football page of Daily Mirror have 
long since gone.

Other than rumours I don't know the precise detail of the new Crewe - 
Derby - Nottingham - Skegness service, so it is difficult to comment. But as 
always, once we know it will be too late to comment. From what I hear the 
service will be dire for some journeys such as Beeston to Long Eaton and all 
the Skeggie Holidaycampers heaving their mountains of luggage from platform 
to platform due to their forced multiple changes in future will be customer 
service at is best. In fact this often happens already on advertised through 
services, with Crewe - Nottingham often a 153 packed to roof, but at least a 
156 is provided east of Nottingham, but it means an unexpected change of 
trains at Nottingham and usually a cross bridge interchange. This delays 
train a good 15 minutes (so it misses slot on single track in Lincs and gets 
even later), but CT doesn't care a jot about time keeping, so why the 
concern over leaf fall?

Part of problem may be Allington Curve which I believe was taxing timers. 
Staying with 'too difficult' scenario I thought they didn't want to retime 
Derby - Crewe nor the Skeggie end of the route, but if trains stay in their 
old paths at the extremities, with Allington Curve the bit in middle doesn't 
work. Solution - just cancel trains over the middle bit or at least do away 
with through workings.

Franchise extension was mentioned in Brum Post on 1st Sept: 
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/tm_objectid=15919431%26method=full%26siteid=50002%26headline=central%2dtrains%2dgets%2dstay%2dof%2dexecution-name_page.html

Not sure I understood what Nick Brown or whoever was saying about Crewe and 
Matlock. Could it become a Crewe - Matlock service, although not advertised 
as such, that is just what some units do?

So much guess work on all this and it is a pity that at meetings such at 
EMPTUF there is not more detail on offer. I had assumed local government was 
better informed, but after Tuesday's meeting I guess that is not the case.

I thank goodness Nottingham/Derby area has Trentbarton buses, which is more 
or less what Nick Brown was saying too!

One for Ross. From what seems to be announced so far, the Notts - Newark 
local service this leaf fall stays train. That could change I suppose, but 
with trains no longer going through to Brum, perhaps it doesn't matter so 
much?

David

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:08:12 GMT, David Harby wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:39:33 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >I suspect that the local authorities won't be quiet where the RHL is
> >concerned; both Derbys and Notts CCs have quite a lot invested in the
> >social effects of the RHL.
> 
> They didn't sound very pleased yesterday afternoon. Someone, I think
> from Notts CC, asked if Central were going to put on extra carriages
> to make up for the 50% reduction in service.  You can guess the answer
> without me needing to tell you. Platforms are only two carriages long
> I gather.


Three, I believe. But given that the only three cars around now are
the 170/6s (or the few ex-MML 170/1s), and dogboxen are seemingly
pretty much at a premium since I destroyed 381 (meaning that
strengthening isn't likely), I think we needn't expect to see many of
those around, at least not officially.

Of course, CT's usual inability to actually allocate the diagrammed
units to the work may well mean that 3-car 150s or something are seen,
at least once the current refurb/repaint/whatever programme is
completed.

 

> Someone asked why Central cannot run a train every 45 minutes or
> similar, why reduce the service to hourly? The explanation was 'too
> difficult'. I understood that to mean 'we can't be bothered to spend
> the time trying to work out paths/crew diagrams'


I suspect that it's shorthand for "We doubt we can find the paths out
of Nottingham and the unit and crew diagrams mean that we'd have to
re-diagram the entire company to do it - and given the likelihood of
Network Rail saying 'no paths', we're not willing to do it".

I'm not sure that a 45 minute frequency is any more user friendly than
hourly, myself. Hourly is memorable and doesn't really require
checking a timetable once you know the pattern, just as with
half-hourly. 45 minute frequencies, however...

I'd still prefer that the timetable was left alone, though.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:12:52 GMT, David Thornhill wrote in
<UtKTe.298$yF2.22@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> CT doesn't care a jot about time keeping, 


You'd be amazed. They've gone from "don't give a toss" to jumping
crews for 1 minute loss in running, which given CT's usual ability at
treating people in a way which will gain co-operation means that there
a quite a few rather offended traincrew out there at the moment.


[...] 

> One for Ross. From what seems to be announced so far, the Notts - Newark 
> local service this leaf fall stays train. That could change I suppose, but 
> with trains no longer going through to Brum, perhaps it doesn't matter so 
> much?


I wouldn't be at all surprised, TBH. Certainly the punctuality of the
new service isn't wonderful and despite my comments above it seems
that TPTB have pretty much decided that there's little that can be
done.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:59:39 GMT, David Harby wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> Nick Brown made a lot of the fact that the break up was announced a
> year ago but there has still not been any announcement of how this
> will be done. He then pointed out that the franchise expires in a few
> months. The implication was that as there is hardly enough time left
> now to specify a new franchise and get it awarded before the Central
> franchise runs out.


TBH that was pretty much a foregone even at the time it was announced;
the timescale simply wasn't long enough for anything other than an "as
is" refranchising or minor tweaks.
 


> My cynical view is that Darling announced the split up without
> consulting anyone who knew about the franchise and has now found  that
> the split up is likely to cost more (unless of course they reduce
> services).


I'll go along with that. 

You'll not be surprised to hear that there has been a lot of staff
time put into trying to figure out just how CT can be split and every
possible combination of splits that has been suggested has the problem
that it creates more problems than it solves.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

In message , at 21:39:33 on 
Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Ross  remarked:

>At the moment crewing RHL services
>is easy as Nottingham is some 30 drivers over-establishment, but
>there's a strong rumour that the surplus will be dealt with in the
>traditional fashion (by getting rid of those whose records allow it
>and whose faces don't fit), and given that some RHL workings are/were
>crewed by Norwich based crews (I kid ye not), knocking a few on the
>head will allow a more resilient timetable and for work to be
>reallocated solely to Nottingham while at the same time reducing staff
>numbers there.


I wonder if there was one of those "unofficial not-strikes" at 
Nottingham on Sunday? There were notices from CT at the station on the 
Saturday saying that "due to unexpected staff shortages" they weren't 
going to be running many trains the next day.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Ross"  wrote in message 
news:57vuh1904c22hpl5vjin449bd6blt8b3nk@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:12:52 GMT, David Thornhill wrote in
> <UtKTe.298$yF2.22@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:
>
> [...]
>> CT doesn't care a jot about time keeping,
>
> You'd be amazed. They've gone from "don't give a toss" to jumping
> crews for 1 minute loss in running, which given CT's usual ability at
> treating people in a way which will gain co-operation means that there
> a quite a few rather offended traincrew out there at the moment.
>
>
> [...]
>> One for Ross. From what seems to be announced so far, the Notts - Newark
>> local service this leaf fall stays train. That could change I suppose, 
>> but
>> with trains no longer going through to Brum, perhaps it doesn't matter so
>> much?
>
> I wouldn't be at all surprised, TBH. Certainly the punctuality of the
> new service isn't wonderful and despite my comments above it seems
> that TPTB have pretty much decided that there's little that can be
> done.


And,  this morning they have decided to terminate at Crewe all northbound 
Liverpools.

Anyone for Winsford, Hartford?

KW.

Ken Ward wrote:


>
> And,  this morning they have decided to terminate at Crewe all northbound
> Liverpools.
>
> Anyone for Winsford, Hartford?
>
> KW.


According to the NRE website, there's been a fatality in the Runcorn
area and the line there was closed until 09.15 or so, so all services
in the area will be out of whack for a while.

"David Thornhill"  wrote in message 
news:LGzTe.8963$VB1.5570@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Peter Fox"  wrote in message 
> news:dfm7vu$mlu$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "David Thornhill"  wrote in message 
>> news:wOoTe.4368$Aa1.844@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>>> For the leaf fall season this year, CT is to reduce the off peak service 
>>> on Robin Hood Line by half. Yes, 50% of trains cancelled. What are many 
>>> passengers meant to do each autumn - hibernate?
>>>
>> Surely the point is that because of the single-line, the timetable only 
>> just fits in. If the half-hourly service is attempted then it could end 
>> up totally unreliable.
>>
>
> I cannot remember previous years being a problem.
>

There were not many problems in general last year due to the weather. This 
was more a matter of luck.

Peter Fox

"Ross"  wrote in message 
news:o5kuh1t1spbnhdofeveq7ss57jsqlhm1nv@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:21:54 GMT, David Harby wrote in
> , seen in uk.railway:
>
> [....]
>> I can see some benefits for Lincolnshire in splitting the Skegness -
>> Crewe service into Skegness - Nottingham and Derby - Crewe from
>> December. However I doubt if giving a better service to Skegness is
>> really the reason for the split despite what was said. Getting ready
>> for the split up of Central Trains is more likely.
>
> The original plan was going to be Derby - Crewe and Skegness -
> Matlock, with various bits of extra recovery time to improve
> punctuality on the Skegs. That was planned before the split was
> mooted, but what the reasoning behind the current plans are is
> anyone's guess.
>

My understanding is that they are trying to improve reliability by only 
having four trains per hour reversing at Derby instead of six. However IMHO 
the best way of doing this would be to run Nottingham - Matlock and run 
Nottingham - Cardiff via Sheet Stores - Stenson.

Peter Fox

"Peter Fox"  wrote in message 
news:dfp2rk$53v$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
>>
> My understanding is that they are trying to improve reliability by only 
> having four trains per hour reversing at Derby instead of six. However 
> IMHO the best way of doing this would be to run Nottingham - Matlock and 
> run Nottingham - Cardiff via Sheet Stores - Stenson.
>


Totally agree with you Peter. To most of us in Notts your suggestion is 
blindingly obvious, but fails miserably to interest the rail industry and 
consultants who have looked into this. It's the usual nonsense of a business 
case cannot be made for upgrading Sheet Stores - Stenson for one train each 
way per hour.

Reliability is important, but I do wonder where the obsession with it will 
end. Is it so Blair can eventually make a speech akin to:

"The rail industry in the hands of New Labour during 2007 saw the wonderful 
achievement of 100% of trains on time and no trains cancelled at all. It is 
of course recognised that running just two trains per day on each line in 
England needs further thought and I have today commissioned a ten million 
pound consultancy contract to look into the feasibility of increasing that 
to three trains per day. Yes under New Labour you can look forward to a 50% 
increase in service levels by 2050."

David

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:13:09 +0000 (UTC), Peter Fox wrote in
<dfp2rk$53v$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, seen in
uk.railway:

[...]

> My understanding is that they are trying to improve reliability by only 
> having four trains per hour reversing at Derby instead of six. However IMHO 
> the best way of doing this would be to run Nottingham - Matlock and run 
> Nottingham - Cardiff via Sheet Stores - Stenson.


The latter won't happen simply because Derby is too big a business
point for CT. The former is similar to the Skeg - Matlocks as
originally proposed; I'm still not sure why that hasn't happened, but
no doubt we'll never know.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Maybe someone high up in CT keeps ticking the "too difficult to do box"
?

Here we are just over six months from the end of the franchise and
still no clues as to who gets what in the big carve up.

Give us a clue, Ross.

On 8 Sep 2005 12:43:12 -0700, Grumpy Old Man wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:


> Here we are just over six months from the end of the franchise and
> still no clues as to who gets what in the big carve up.
> 
> Give us a clue, Ross.


I've given you the only clue I've been fed, mate: franchise extension
because the carve-up is too difficult for anyone to even contemplate
at the moment.

Cynic that I am, I suggest the long term action will be for CT to
remain much as now, with at most some tweaking around the edges: Brum
- Salop to ATW, that sort of thing. Anything else will be too
difficult politically because of the cost; CT will be the best of a
series of bad options (where "bad" means "expensive" and "best" means
"cheapest overall").

Never mind; we've got a nice NEG uniform (no more green jackets,
hooray!), pretty repainted 150s and we'll have ticket barrier gates at
Lincoln soon. What more could anyone want? 

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

>
>> My cynical view is that Darling announced the split up without
>> consulting anyone who knew about the franchise and has now found  that
>> the split up is likely to cost more (unless of course they reduce
>> services).
>
>I'll go along with that. 
>
>You'll not be surprised to hear that there has been a lot of staff
>time put into trying to figure out just how CT can be split and every
>possible combination of splits that has been suggested has the problem
>that it creates more problems than it solves.


My informant from within Central tells me that when they looked at
diagrams for a franchise split between local and City Link services
they found out that more units and staff would be needed just to run
the existing service. 

This might seem blindingly obvious to all of us who know something
about the current diagrams but we cannot expect commonsense from a
Government Minister. For some idea of their ability to run a p*** up
in a brewery we just need to consider Child Support Agency and Child
Tax Credit. I just hope the Minister responsible for one of those
farces is not 'promoted' to Transport Minister in the next reshuffle.

David

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:22:46, Ross  wrote:

>
>Cynic that I am, I suggest the long term action will be for CT to
>remain much as now, with at most some tweaking around the edges: Brum
>- Salop to ATW, that sort of thing.


....and hopefully Brum-Cardiff to ATW!  (W&B did operate half the
services until a couple of years ago).


>Never mind; we've got a nice NEG uniform (no more green jackets,
>hooray!), pretty repainted 150s and we'll have ticket barrier gates at
>Lincoln soon. What more could anyone want? 


Err, 99.5% reliability, 91.0% punctuality, no more "wedged" trains,
properly trained staff, re-instatement of discontinued tickets, blah,
blah, blah?   ;-)

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

David Thornhill wrote:


> Other than rumours I don't know the precise detail of the new Crewe - 
> Derby - Nottingham - Skegness service, so it is difficult to comment. But as 
> always, once we know it will be too late to comment. From what I hear the 
> service will be dire for some journeys such as Beeston to Long Eaton and all 
> the Skeggie Holidaycampers heaving their mountains of luggage from platform 
> to platform due to their forced multiple changes in future will be customer 
> service at is best.
<snip>
> I thank goodness Nottingham/Derby area has Trentbarton buses, which is more 
> or less what Nick Brown was saying too!


Having recently moved to Beeston Rylands (south Beeston, near the 
station) I have realised what a wasted opportunity the local train 
services are in this area. The train service to Nottingham takes 7 
minutes and costs only 1.50 return vs about 20 minutes and 2.40 
on the bus. The problem is though, the three trains an hour are 
not evenly spaced - coming back again if you miss the 11-past 
departure then the next one is not until 52-past. It would only 
take maybe one more train to stop at Beeston and CT could gain a 
lot of custom away from bus passengers.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:35:57 +0100, Paul Harley wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:22:46, Ross  wrote:
> >
> >Cynic that I am, I suggest the long term action will be for CT to
> >remain much as now, with at most some tweaking around the edges: Brum
> >- Salop to ATW, that sort of thing.
> 
> ...and hopefully Brum-Cardiff to ATW!  (W&B did operate half the
> services until a couple of years ago).


Doubt it, because of their extension to/from Nott'm to run vice VXC
Gloster - Derby.
 
Nottingham - Liverpool to FGK/TPE is more likely than that IMO, but is
also pretty unlikely.



> >Never mind; we've got a nice NEG uniform (no more green jackets,
> >hooray!), pretty repainted 150s and we'll have ticket barrier gates at
> >Lincoln soon. What more could anyone want? 
> 
> Err, 99.5% reliability, 91.0% punctuality, no more "wedged" trains,
> properly trained staff, re-instatement of discontinued tickets, blah,
> blah, blah?   ;-)


I think I'd best not say anything. ;-)

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

less what Nick Brown was saying too!

>
> Having recently moved to Beeston Rylands (south Beeston, near the station) 
> I have realised what a wasted opportunity the local train services are in 
> this area. The train service to Nottingham takes 7 minutes and costs only 
> 1.50 return vs about 20 minutes and 2.40 on the bus. The problem is 
> though, the three trains an hour are not evenly spaced - coming back again 
> if you miss the 11-past departure then the next one is not until 52-past. 
> It would only take maybe one more train to stop at Beeston and CT could 
> gain a lot of custom away from bus passengers.


If you think that's bad, look at Shefield - Chesterfield - Derby!

Sean

"David Harby"  wrote in message 
news:crluh1puvkmi39q056m239lprpo14bqv7t@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:39:33 +0100, Ross 
| wrote:
|
| >
| >I suspect that the local authorities won't be quiet where the RHL is
| >concerned; both Derbys and Notts CCs have quite a lot invested in the
| >social effects of the RHL.
|
| They didn't sound very pleased yesterday afternoon. Someone, I think
| from Notts CC, asked if Central were going to put on extra carriages
| to make up for the 50% reduction in service.  You can guess the answer
| without me needing to tell you. Platforms are only two carriages long
| I gather.
|
| Someone asked why Central cannot run a train every 45 minutes or
| similar, why reduce the service to hourly? The explanation was 'too
| difficult'. I understood that to mean 'we can't be bothered to spend
| the time trying to work out paths/crew diagrams'
|

The explanation may be to do with the geography of the single line.

Island Line run two trains per hour, but 20 and 40 minutes apart (one makes 
an easy connection with the ferry, one a very daring one).  They cannot run 
a half-hour interval service because the passing loop is not half-way along 
the route.  This is due to there having once been two, but one was lifted 
for economy and the other left in situ.
-- 
                - Yokel -
    oo                               oo
  OOO                           OOO
   OO            0                OO
    ) (              I                  ) (
    ) (              /\                 ) (

"Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.