Stagecoach win East Midlands franchise

On 22 Jun, 10:26, "David Thornhill" <s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[....]
> But, the press release is largely about ex-MML. It doesn't say a great deal
> about ex-CT rural lines.

I suspect that the outlook for the rural lines will be similar to
today's weather forecast: "More of the same".

R.

"Chris Tolley" <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:1rvpoinu5ra0o.68va8khfb2l3$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Paul Corfield wrote:
>
>> Over the life of the franchise, seven years and four months, the
>> DfT will receive a premium of £133m from Stagecoach Midland Rail
>> Limited.
>
> and
>
>> Stagecoach Midland Rail Limited have indicated they may wish
>> to raise unregulated fares annually by an average of 3.4% above
>> inflation.
>
> Once again, we see the magic of the franchise bidding system at work.
> Promise a huge premium to win the bid, then get the customers to foot
> the bill for it.

Yup, alrady suffering that on SouthWest Trains, where 1 pound in every 5
goes to the government. Not Network Rail, or anywhere else related to the
railway, but straight into the exchequer as general taxation. There may not
be VAT on transport, but there's already a 25% (stealth) tax on my train
fares.

On Jun 22, 5:32 pm, asdf <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:27:56 -0700, Neil Williams wrote:
> >> Are there any secret plans to raise off peak fares or to issue guards
> >> with instructions to treat passengers wanting to buy tickets on board
> >> as fare dodgers - see thread concerning SWT. I think we should be
> >> told.
>
> >Unregulated fares = off peak fares, or as good as.
>
> Hmmm. My understanding was that, basically, regulated fares = walk-on
> off-peak fares (CDR/SVR), and seasons. Unregulated fares = peak
> walk-on fares (SDR/SOR) and advance purchase.

Not quite. Peak fares are generally (or effectively) regulated.
Regulated fares are normally Season tickets, Savers or, for
shorter distances, the Standard Day Return or (in a few cases) the
Standard Open Return.
Most off-peak tickets, with the exception of Savers, are unregulated.
For London commuter services, and in certain other large urban areas,
a wider range of fares, including most tickets purchased by commuters,
are
included in regulated fares 'baskets'

In message <1182562182.753020.186150@k79g2000hse. .com>, at
18:29:42 on Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Philip <philip@walkerpj.freeserve.co.uk>
remarked:
>I thought the DfT specified that Nottingham fasts include a Derby
>portion that would be split off at Leicester. Surely not a good idea
>due to reduced capcity for Nottingham in particular. Is this still
>proposed?

One of the announcements say that this will no longer happen, but
inexplicably claims it's because of the new Kettering/Corby service.

In terms of capacity issues, the trains to/from Nottingham don't seem to
be very full; it's further south that the problems arise in the rush
hours.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tpOdnZjzm9BKUOHbnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@bt.com>, at 08:37:33 on
Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Peter Masson <peter.masson1@> remarked:
>
>"Philip" <philip@walkerpj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>
>I thought the DfT specified that Nottingham fasts include a Derby
>portion that would be split off at Leicester. Surely not a good idea
>due to reduced capcity for Nottingham in particular. Is this still
>proposed?
>
>AIUI the plan to split at Leicester has been dropped. Instead, a 5th train
>will run each hour, a far as Kettering (and possibly Corby). This presumably
>means that one of the existing stoppers will be accelerated by omitting some
>stops south of Kettering, to be replaced by the 5th train, and will mean
>that Market Harborough keeps 2 trains per hour.

So perhaps Derby will get a fast and a semi-fast [maybe Kettering,
Leicester and EMP only], and Nottingham a fast and the (one remaining
long distance) stopper?

Will mean people travelling from (eg) Luton to Derby will be forced to
change trains at Kettering [1], Leicester or EMP [2]. Also explains the
meagre 2tph at EMP (I was expecting nearly all trains to stop there;
heck, if it's 2tph *overall* then are the ex-CT trains on that stretch
of line running straight through?).

[1] If they leave Luton on the 1tph Kettering stopper
[2] Further opportunities if they leave Luton on the 1tph Nottingham
stopper.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <1182562182.753020.186150@k79g2000hse. .com>, at
> 18:29:42 on Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Philip <philip@walkerpj.freeserve.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> I thought the DfT specified that Nottingham fasts include a Derby
>> portion that would be split off at Leicester. Surely not a good idea
>> due to reduced capcity for Nottingham in particular. Is this still
>> proposed?
>
> One of the announcements say that this will no longer happen, but
> inexplicably claims it's because of the new Kettering/Corby service.
>
> In terms of capacity issues, the trains to/from Nottingham don't seem
> to be very full; it's further south that the problems arise in the
> rush hours.

Another opportunity seems to have been missed by not continuing the Corby
trains on, via Manton Junction, to Melton Mowbray and Leicester and then
back to London via Market Harborough, to provide some relief to the
overcrowding (especially severe in and around the peaks) between Melton and
Leicester and to provide direct journey opportunities between Corby and
Leicester. Alternate hours clockwise and anti-clockwise could bring in some
more revenue for very minimal outlay - unless the time constraints don't fit
with the clockface pattern.

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:56:45 GMT, "Jack Taylor" <Jack@Carney.co.uk>
wrote:

>Another opportunity seems to have been missed by not continuing the Corby
>trains on, via Manton Junction, to Melton Mowbray and Leicester and then
>back to London via Market Harborough, to provide some relief to the
>overcrowding (especially severe in and around the peaks) between Melton and
>Leicester and to provide direct journey opportunities between Corby and
>Leicester. Alternate hours clockwise and anti-clockwise could bring in some
>more revenue for very minimal outlay - unless the time constraints don't fit
>with the clockface pattern.

Judging from the wording of the award announcement Stagecoach have
merely provided an option for trains to Corby in compliance with what
the DfT asked for. I imagine it is up to the DfT to decide if they wish
to cough up the money for the option and that's probably connected with
the dreaded HLOS and SOFA. Who knows what Stagecoach may have included
as further enhancement of their base Corby bid? It may be that your
suggestion is there for due consideration.
--
Paul C

"Paul Corfield" <aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:ms2q739e2t7t558vk6ag005dro9r0esjlu@...
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:56:45 GMT, "Jack Taylor" <Jack@Carney.co.uk>
> wrote:

> Judging from the wording of the award announcement Stagecoach have
> merely provided an option for trains to Corby in compliance with what
> the DfT asked for. I imagine it is up to the DfT to decide if they wish
> to cough up the money for the option and that's probably connected with
> the dreaded HLOS and SOFA. Who knows what Stagecoach may have included
> as further enhancement of their base Corby bid? It may be that your
> suggestion is there for due consideration.

There is some possibility that SWT have managed to persuade the DfT that
other possible solutions exist. SWT still run to Bristol, and beyond Exeter
to Paignton and Plymouth; these services and the new format
Salisbury/Southampton/Romsey loop are in addition to the original
SouthWestern franchise specification.

Paul

In message <1U7fi.5728$_l6.531@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, at 11:56:45 on
Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Jack Taylor <Jack@Carney.co.uk> remarked:
>Another opportunity seems to have been missed by not continuing the Corby
>trains on, via Manton Junction, to Melton Mowbray and Leicester and then
>back to London

Is this perhaps what's meant by the otherwise inscrutable comments that
sending trains through to Corby "removes the need to split and join
trains at Leicester"?
--
Roland Perry

In message <lAgfi.7881$tj3.5000@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, at 21:50:09 on
Sat, 23 Jun 2007, flybywire <ramrod@ny.com> remarked:
>worrying there is no mention of the voB commuter line to Grantham from
>Nottingham

Several of the ex-CT lines get "no mention" - the press releases are
almost exclusively about "better things", and they avoid the "business
as usual" lines. But they did say the Nottingham-Liverpools will be
upgraded to four cars, which either means a permanent change at
Nottingham onto the (once through-service) Norwich trains; or will they
join and split a 2+2?

--
Roland Perry