I wonder if what might be happening is that ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) realise (as they must) that split ticketing that produces much lower fares is an indication that the normal fares have gone a bit stupid, and looks bad for the whole industry. If I was in their shoes, I'd be quietly suggesting to the member TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) that it was in all their interests to adjust fares to remove the more ridiculous discrepancies. If splitting fares then became a matter of saving only the odd few quid I think many pax would no longer bother...

Paul

I don't think is stated quite clearly at all really. The ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) (what they were originally asked to do) includes June 2010.

"The Bidder may provide the increase in capacity in steps, with the full requirement to be provided by June 2010 at the latest. An interim minimum increase in capacity must be provided from December 2008"

The franchise agreement, which is what they offered to do, and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) agreed with, does then suggest 2009.

Either way, there is no way they'll have withdrawn HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams without DfT's tacit approval.

Paul

I see one of the comments refers to a ^1400 annual increase from Rochester, but when I looked it up it was ^700... 

About ^3 per working day then...  Which is pretty good indicator of what a bargain annual seasons are, as the Anytime return addon price is around ^8...

Paul

They have to prioritise their work, it can't possibly be 'first come first served', ie done in sequence.  Someone there has to make a judgement about where to task the staff every time a new accident occurs...

Paul

Very interesting...  The latest news from NREs^‡(resolve) is that you can do this with a ^10 Devon Day Ranger?

Paul

It is two separate services in the timetable, and there isn't time between them for the standard connection time at that station?

Paul

I liked this bit:


Some people seem to reckon it is all doom and gloom on the line and the new service is no big deal, but if that statement is true (and I've no reason to doubt it) it should be applauded.

One of the regulars in uk.railway, who has timetables going back donkey's years, reckons the current times (with far more stops) also compare very well with the so called expresses of years ago, which only ran once or twice a day...

Paul

Barry Doe seems to be making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill on this one. I reckon just about every SWT^▸ (South West Trains) timetable permanently shows the last couple of down services each day as 'may be subject to engineering works'.  That's without anything major planned, it just seems to be a get out clause for various NR^» (Network Rail - home page) inspections and/or early starts for normal overnight planned maintenance...

Paul

Manchester to Euxton is what allows Manchester to Preston. Euxton Jn to Preston is already WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line)...

As it says in the link above:


Anyone would think you never bothered reading official info... 

Paul

I think I've cracked this problem. All it needs is a bit of programming added to the online journey planners:

"Cross London journey times allow so much slack for both travelling on the tube and for walking between mainline and underground platforms, if you tick the box on the advanced options page we'll probably be able to sort you out with a GP checkup as well..."   

Paul

Given the contracts are paid whether or not anyone appears for a consultation, maybe the docs go round now and again taking down the signs?     I bet the NHS would be a great place to work if it wasn't for patients showing up...

Paul

Yes - they became publicly available by the 7th, as I suggested just above.  I'm pretty sure it happened overnight 6/7, so that matches last year, the start of the week 3-4 weeks ahead.

Paul

Mid afternoon - I was having a quick check of Axminster performance today.  Unfortunately live departure boards doesn't seem to work yet. About the only thing I regularly use...

Paul

I doubt if ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)))'s objections have any more significance than any of the others. They are basically there on the basis that if their current application is approved, they will already have rights to the route, so why should they pay more if Chiltern improve the route afterwards.

I think many people think that ATW have little or no chance of approval anyway, but I'm sure they have to cover all the options...  IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) Hull Trains quickly got the bums rush when they proposed to go off their patch, although that's possibly slightly different as they are open access...

Paul

The latest TfL^» (Transport for London - about) board papers, which are somewhat delayed in what they report, reckon that most TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) TVMs^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) will be modified to retail Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) products such as PAYG^▸ (Pay as you go) credit (there's the usual 'but not SWT^▸ (South West Trains)' stuff of course).  In fact this is already mentioned in the weeds of some of the various TfL press releases.)   I understand that some of FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s TVMs already do PAYG top ups. So once hardware to allow for PAYG top ups becomes generally available, presumably it would only require a software change to provide OEPs as well?

Paul