Network Rail Cancels Christmas on the East Coast

> I would like to have heard how that complaint was resolved.

I meant 'I would have liked ...' but I'm sure you understood that. (I
don't want to give Mizter T a chance to correct *my* grammar.) ;-)

On 24 Dec, 11:36, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
> GC aren't running anything.

But were originally going to be terminating at Biggleswade according
to a FCC poster I saw somewhere!!

On 24 Dec, 21:41, Standing at HN28 signal <cig_big_....uk>
wrote:
> On 24 Dec, 11:36, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
>
> > GC aren't running anything.
>
> But were originally going to be terminating at Biggleswade according
> to a FCC poster I saw somewhere!!

This should all be catered for as part of the informed traveller
process. Possessions as large as this one are known some time out (I
am talking over a year). At 24 weeks out Network Rail issues its
dratft weekly engineering notice. They then meet the Train Operating
Companies and a confirmed period possession plan issued. All TOCs are
required to submit their bids for train service alterations at 18
weeks out. 4 weeks later at 14 weeks later Network Rail replies with
its proposals. The TOCs then have 2 weeks to clear up any problems
with Network Rail and the timetables uploaded at 12 weeks out

Its looks like FCC did not submit their bid on time and consequently
did not have their timetable uploaded at T-12. Even so I am surprised
that with work of a nature such as this that NXEC ( where the
dependant on FCC to convey their passengers for part of the journey)
appear to have failed to check with FCC that their timetable had been
uploaded. Had they been aware of this problem then I assume this
situation would have ben avoided by withholding the timetable

Network Rail however should also have advised NXEC that they were yet
to upload the FCC timetable - this also have prevcented this
happening.

Finally i always thought that you could get access to the "Rules of
the Route" and "Rules of the Plan" through the public Network Rail
site

..

On 25 Dec, 18:40, Munchenst...@wsmith6.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 24 Dec, 21:41, Standing at HN28 signal <cig_big_....uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Dec, 11:36, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
>
> > > GC aren't running anything.
>
> > But were originally going to be terminating at Biggleswade according
> > to a FCC poster I saw somewhere!!
>
> This should all be catered for as part of the informed traveller
> process. Possessions as large as this one are known some time out (I
> am talking over a year). At 24 weeks out Network Rail issues its
> dratft weekly engineering notice. They then meet the Train Operating
> Companies and a confirmed period possession plan issued. All TOCs are
> required to submit their bids for train service alterations at 18
> weeks out. 4 weeks later at 14 weeks later Network Rail replies with
> its proposals. The TOCs then have 2 weeks to clear up any problems
> with Network Rail and the timetables uploaded at 12 weeks out
>
> Its looks like FCC did not submit their bid on time and consequently
> did not have their timetable uploaded at T-12. Even so I am surprised
> that with work of a nature such as this that NXEC ( where the
> dependant on FCC to convey their passengers for part of the journey)
> appear to have failed to check with FCC that their timetable had been
> uploaded. Had they been aware of this problem then I assume this
> situation would have ben avoided by withholding the timetable
>
> Network Rail however should also have advised NXEC that they were yet
> to upload the FCC timetable - this also have prevcented this
> happening.
>
> Finally i always thought that you could get access to the "Rules of
> the Route" and "Rules of the Plan" through the public Network Rail
> site
>
> .

Would also add that should the ticket have been purchased through the
net or a call centre then there is no excuse for failing to notify you
- should they have been aware of the change of schedules ( airlines
seem to manage it)

In message
<193731c1-c3a7-4ba6-9392-3d8fe3bece33@f3g2000hsg..com>, at
10:40:03 on Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Munchenstein@wsmith6.fsnet.co.uk remarked:
>Its looks like FCC did not submit their bid on time and consequently
>did not have their timetable uploaded at T-12. Even so I am surprised
>that with work of a nature such as this that NXEC ( where the
>dependant on FCC to convey their passengers for part of the journey)
>appear to have failed to check with FCC that their timetable had been
>uploaded. Had they been aware of this problem then I assume this
>situation would have ben avoided by withholding the timetable
>
>Network Rail however should also have advised NXEC that they were yet
>to upload the FCC timetable - this also have prevcented this
>happening.

Can any of this lack of co-ordination be laid at the feet of the
franchise changeover. GNER not being bothered because it was after their
franchise ended; and NXEC not yet in possession of the franchise, still
to appoint their management team, and struggling to get up to speed?
--
Roland Perry

On 26 Dec, 08:51, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <193731c1-c3a7-4ba6-9392-3d8fe3bec...@f3g2000hsg..com>, at
> 10:40:03 on Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Munchenst...@wsmith6.fsnet.co.uk remarked:
>
> >Its looks like FCC did not submit their bid on time and consequently
> >did not have their timetable uploaded at T-12. Even so I am surprised
> >that with work of a nature such as this that NXEC ( where the
> >dependant on FCC to convey their passengers for part of the journey)
> >appear to have failed to check with FCC that their timetable had been
> >uploaded. Had they been aware of this problem then I assume this
> >situation would have ben avoided by withholding the timetable
>
> >Network Rail however should also have advised NXEC that they were yet
> >to upload the FCC timetable - this also have prevcented this
> >happening.
>
> Can any of this lack of co-ordination be laid at the feet of the
> franchise changeover. GNER not being bothered because it was after their
> franchise ended; and NXEC not yet in possession of the franchise, still
> to appoint their management team, and struggling to get up to speed?
> --
> Roland Perry

The same management team works through. Could well be forgetfulness by
both parties in that they forgot about the fact that the service south
of Peterborough whilst being operated by FCC was actually conveying
the passengers of 2 TOCs

In message
<59c8d4c5-82a2-4001-981d-c1d284b0f157@n20g2000hsh..com>, at
01:21:19 on Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Munchenstein@wsmith6.fsnet.co.uk remarked:
>> Can any of this lack of co-ordination be laid at the feet of the
>> franchise changeover. GNER not being bothered because it was after their
>> franchise ended; and NXEC not yet in possession of the franchise, still
>> to appoint their management team, and struggling to get up to speed?
>
>The same management team works through.

Although it has been reported here that a whole layer of management at
CT has been replaced by EMT. Yes, I would expect people to be thinking
ahead, but I wonder if the date of the change (a month later than the
other franchise changes) caused a one-off problem.

> Could well be forgetfulness by both parties in that they forgot about
>the fact that the service south of Peterborough whilst being operated
>by FCC was actually conveying the passengers of 2 TOCs

It's not unusual for GNER to have truncated services at Peterborough.
--
Roland Perry

On 26 Dec, 09:58, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <59c8d4c5-82a2-4001-981d-c1d284b0f...@n20g2000hsh..com>, at
> 01:21:19 on Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Munchenst...@wsmith6.fsnet.co.uk remarked:
>
> >> Can any of this lack of co-ordination be laid at the feet of the
> >> franchise changeover. GNER not being bothered because it was after their
> >> franchise ended; and NXEC not yet in possession of the franchise, still
> >> to appoint their management team, and struggling to get up to speed?
>
> >The same management team works through.
>
> Although it has been reported here that a whole layer of management at
> CT has been replaced by EMT. Yes, I would expect people to be thinking
> ahead, but I wonder if the date of the change (a month later than the
> other franchise changes) caused a one-off problem.
>
> > Could well be forgetfulness by both parties in that they forgot about
> >the fact that the service south of Peterborough whilst being operated
> >by FCC was actually conveying the passengers of 2 TOCs
>
> It's not unusual for GNER to have truncated services at Peterborough.
> --
> Roland Perry

Well in which case? - I would add that:

1) If FCC had failed to bid on time - then even if not their job -
common sense dictates that NR staff should advised NXEC of the
situation when offering NXEC their timetable
2) If NR did point it out then the responsibility lies with NXEC