I thought the whole point of a franchise was that the farnchisee ran all the risks. So that if they can't meet their committments then they go bust and their shareholders suffer.

It is dead easy for BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) to pick up the franchise run it like South Eastern. If several went bust at once then you have the makings of a new BR.

After all the EU^» (European Union - about) directive only requires the cost of infrastructure and train running to be accounted for separately. Look at France their infrastructure company equivalent to Networkrail contracts all the work to SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways).

Just to confuse teh issue even further DafT have used vehicles. As in 1300 new vehicles.

That's so they can be fuelled by hydrogen.

I think bristol blogger has raised a very interesting point and whilst reflex109 is right it gets the service back on track it still leaves passengers from intermeadiate stations without a train. Although  at 09:25 there may not be many passengers from  say Bedminister Parsons Street Nailsea to Weston there could well be pasengers from the remaining stations going into Weston for the day as cheap day tickets would be available.

Then of course there are people from BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) who might want these stations how do they get on?

I would, therefore, be interested to know what provision FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are obliged to make for such passengers. I have a feeling it's nothing as it's not the last train of the day.

In other posts on Coffee Shop the problems of  conveying bikes on trains has been aired. It has occurred to me that the TOCS/Networkrail/TFL^▸ (Transport for London) are missing a trick.

Why don't "they" (and it could be anybody) provide bike hire at major stations.

It could be integrated into the fare so for say a ^2  extra you get the use of bike for a day at your destination.

In London it could be integrated into Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) and allow say to drop off at any London terminal or larger station. At ^2 it's far cheaper than the tube even with a travel card.

I am obviously being far too simplistic, so I guess it would never work! No doubt members will tell me why it won't work.


 

Agree with you 100% regarding buses on old rail routes.

However, trams can operate successfully on heavy rail. Agreed it is probably too late for WM Metro to be put back to heavy rail with the trams sharing the tracks. However, their are absolutely no technical issues with the Portishead and Severn Beach lines being shared by trams which operate through central Bristol, heavy rail units and freight.

Just go to Kassell or Karlsruhr. Even the Harz metre gauge system runs steam, diesel railcars, ED tram/trains and freight on a single line with loops for 12kms North of Nordhausen.

This explanation for not altering the interfaces at either end of the line had been put forward before, Which is why Norton to Eversham and doubling  a short stretch from Wolvercote to allow a train from Oxford to get on the line and not block the Banbury line are not in scheme. The upgrading of the freight loops North of Oxford has been put forward to slove the latter problem.

I suppose trains will still have to queue to get between Eversham and Norton. Thus extension from Eversham to Pershore would seem like a good idea.

But as stebbo says any redoubling is a start. Let's hope it doesn't suffer the "boiling frog syndrome". Newtworkrail really has to pull out all the stops  on this one and get it done on time and budget. If not the Board members ought to face a considerable pay cut. It's a good time to do it as contractors are desparate for work and there's lots of earth moving equipment going spare.

Hadn't thought of that before even more incongurous when applied to a King.

I agree with Northerner link, it does come down to electrification. There is no point in building a large number of new DMUS with 30 years life when there are plenty of units with 20 years life that would be displaced by electrification. Once the major routes are electrified and long distance trains are back to loco hauled there be sufficient newish DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) to run the branches for 20/30 years when who knows we might have fuel cell powered units.

As I've said before don't hold your breath on new units and I wouldn't be surprised if the cascades are changed when any new units are delivered. until then it's a case of rearanging the deckchairs on the Titantic.

Sort of good news bad news story. Good news it's thit he buffers bad news so much money has already been spent and a rail line ruined.

Suggest our Bristol and Bath users waste no time in ensuring their relevant transport authorities are passed this info.

Now's the time to plug tram trains Portishead to Severn Beach with a circuit via the docks, town centre and BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)).

Congratulations Hafren you've just succinctly  summarised the absurdity  of the current mess. I was going to say system but I can can't make out any systematic features. Didn't someone post on Coffee Shop that there are thousands (4000?) exceptions in the fare manuals.

However, back to the topic as I understand it Chiltern have some very competitive fares even for walk on passengers. I would certainly drive to Beaconsfield for a day trip to Birmingham.

I can understand your problem with bikes, but it's not the bikes that's the problem but the design of the train where brake van space has been sacrificed for seats and shorter untis.

Bike train bike is probaly one of the most environmentaly friendly ways of travelling any distance and as such ought to be encouraged. Bike provison can be made on both buses and trains. Go to Rugen and you have buses some with bike racks on the back and some with towed trailers. Plus the narrow gauge railway (steam) has a bike van on every train.

DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) IC^▸ (Inter City) DVTs^‡(resolve) have 30  bike spaces which can be reserved plus seating for the riders and a smashing view of the railway out of the cab.

Bikes (plus wheelchairs, prams and pushchairs) and trains should be complementary and form part of the public transport mix.


(if we presume that customers would travel regardless) which is quite a big assumption the problem is with he "bean counters" who can only see the direct costs of adequate luggage bike etc, provision but not the enviromental benefits, and the "health and happiness" factors of travel by train. 

I sure even you vacman would be happy with a proper space for bikes on trains. But first class luggage and bike space requires longer trains. Back to loco hauled.

There is a very interesting BTF film from the 50s of a rail/bike excursion from Euston to Rugby. Something like 200 riders and their bikes had a day out in the Waarwickshire countryside from Rugby station. Trouble is theren't many BGs^▸ (Brake Gangway (carriage)) lefts.

Sometime late morning convoy of light engines passed through Taplow on Down Relief.

2 * 47, 1* 33, 1* 47 Second 47 and 33 in West Coast Livery.

I believe this was mentioned on Coffe Shop last year, leathal when icy.

Good to here it might be fixed sometime.

My father told a tale of when he was in the RAF^▸ (Royal Air Force) before the war and was on HMS Cornwall. They sent the young aircraftsman for a glass hammer.

He found one from the sick bay, used for testing reflexes. The hoaxers hoaxed.

Red oil for a tail lamp or signal light was a favorite in steam days as was being sent to the stores for a long wait (weight).

Before you ask he was in the RAF and he was on HMS Cornwall looking after the Walrus spotter plane, as the Fleet Air Arm had not yet been formed.