View from the North (or for Scottish readers, the Middle)

"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:R34Hj.27190$%N1.10957@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> Just a few thoughts, anyway. Did you know that Northern
> runs more trains per day (~ 2500) than any other TOC?
> This gives them a claim to be the country's biggest
> rail operator.

Really? I'd have thought it would be one of the big commuter TOCs (SWT
perhaps) or First ScotRail, as they have the Glasgow and Edinburgh suburban
networks, plus their "Express" and rural services.

"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:qt5Hj.19424$Ff4.2543@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> John Tattersall wrote:
>> "Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:R34Hj.27190$%N1.10957@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>> Just a few thoughts, anyway. Did you know that Northern
>>> runs more trains per day (~ 2500) than any other TOC?
>>> This gives them a claim to be the country's biggest
>>> rail operator.
>>
>> Really? I'd have thought it would be one of the big commuter TOCs (SWT
>> perhaps) or First ScotRail, as they have the Glasgow and Edinburgh
>> suburban networks, plus their "Express" and rural services.
>
> So did I ... until I checked all their websites. (Except SWT doesn't
> seem to a give a number of trains per day. Anyone know the figure?)

IIRC it's about 16-1700 services per day Charlie. A great many more unit
movements because so many run doubled or tripled though.

Paul

From the other side of the Pennines, I'd agree broadly- the section of
the railway I use most often (the Ilkley line) has probably never had
a better service to Leeds and Bradford (particularly on weekday
mornings when a 10-minute headway isn't unknown) and usage reflects
this. Similarly, Metro are very good at providing information above
and beyond the National Rail site, and Northern are very keen when it
comes to promoting leisure travel.

As regards the leasing cost issue, I can't help feeling that the
leasing companies are milking depreciated stock for all it's worth in
the knowledge that the train operators can't go anywhere else. A
vehicle leasing firm which ran on that basis would go under straight
away, but the railway leasing companies are pathologically averse to
spending their own money investing in new stock because they've become
dependent on the train operators' subsidies to cover their bottom
line.

"Ianigsy" <ianrcragg@m> wrote in message
news:c4ee7f25-cb95-409c-9df8-327af28d1a7c@i29g2000prf..com...
> From the other side of the Pennines, I'd agree broadly- the section of
> the railway I use most often (the Ilkley line) has probably never had
> a better service to Leeds and Bradford (particularly on weekday
> mornings when a 10-minute headway isn't unknown) and usage reflects
> this. Similarly, Metro are very good at providing information above
> and beyond the National Rail site, and Northern are very keen when it
> comes to promoting leisure travel.
>
> As regards the leasing cost issue, I can't help feeling that the
> leasing companies are milking depreciated stock for all it's worth in
> the knowledge that the train operators can't go anywhere else. A
> vehicle leasing firm which ran on that basis would go under straight
> away, but the railway leasing companies are pathologically averse to
> spending their own money investing in new stock because they've become
> dependent on the train operators' subsidies to cover their bottom
> line.

Doesn't the DfT specify what TOC's can operate? Hence the fiasco with
Virgin's extra carriages, which they (or their replacement) can't have until
after the next franchise round and TPEx's 185order being reduced to 51 units
and questions over whether the ones the've got can be strngthened.

So even if the ROSCO's did buy new trains with their own cash, would any one
be allowed by the 'experts' in the DfT to rent them?

Bryan

On Mar 29, 11:46 am, "Bryan Tenny" <bryan.te...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Doesn't the DfT specify what TOC's can operate?

Technically not.

> Hence the fiasco with
> Virgin's extra carriages, which they (or their replacement) can't have until
> after the next franchise round and TPEx's 185order being reduced to 51 units
> and questions over whether the ones the've got can be strngthened.
>
> So even if the ROSCO's did buy new trains with their own cash, would any one
> be allowed by the 'experts' in the DfT to rent them?

Oh, they would be. The problem is, they are not willing to spend
their own cash without a guarantee that the stock will be leased for
long enough. Franchises themselves don't last long enough for them to
make such agreements, so the DfT gets involved as a party which can
bind the next franchise.

I'm not quite sure how they thought this would work with franchises
much much shorter than life of a train.

--
Abi

"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:OOqHj.18578$4f4.14068@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> abigailb@ wrote:
>
>> The problem is, they are not willing to spend
>> their own cash without a guarantee that the stock will be leased for
>> long enough.
>
> Do they think that the railways are going to shut down? I
> thought such risks were the life-blood of private enterprise.
> Maybe it is time for a new leasing company to enter the market.
>
>> Franchises themselves don't last long enough for them to
>> make such agreements, so the DfT gets involved as a party which can
>> bind the next franchise.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure how they thought this would work with franchises
>> much much shorter than life of a train.
>
> Surely the next franchise would be let and won on the basis that
> existing stock would be used, just as the current Northern and
> Wales/west ones have been? What else could happen?
>

I expect the DfT seriously thought there would always be a fair amount of
spare stock about. Nobody must have realised that you need such a huge
number of fleet types, (Mainline, Regional, Commuter) x (AC, DC, Dual
voltage, Diesel); not to mention the current tendency for fixed stock
specific depots run by manufacturers...

Paul

"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:HywHj.3089$h65.2986@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

>
> I still can't see what the risk would be in buying basic trains
> to replace the Pacers. They'll have to do it eventually, so why not
> phase spread it over a few years and start now?
>
> Unfortunately (in some ways) the 'tram-train' project has now
> reared its head, so that will be another excuse not to invest
> in local trains now.
>

The scary thing is they'll probably tout tram-trains as being the green
alternative to the 'new generation E/DMU' as they can run under wires as
well. Then they'll arrive with an empty or blanked off pantograph well on
the roof, because there aren't any wires...

Paul

"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:HywHj.3089$h65.2986@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> John Tattersall wrote:
>
>>
>> You've missed the fact that the DfT has control over where rolling stock
>> goes. In terms of franchises, rolling stock leases have to be agreed with
>> DfT.
>
> That wasn't the original idea of privatisation though, surely? Perhaps
> the DfT should itself lease all the trains.

Ah, but that would have to be financed by Government borrowing, which Gordon
doesn't like doing. Hence the reason for using the private sector to fund
not only train leasing, but also other projects (PFI, PPP etc etc).