|
16430
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture - related rail and other transport issues / Re: 'FirstGroup in secret move for National Express', from The Times (29/06/09)
|
on: June 30, 2009, 00:52:18
|
being willing to invest money to improve the track At what point has Branson invested a penny piece in track improvements? We have paid for WCML▸ upgrade via Railtrack and Network Rail, not Beardie! slightly off topic but as far as competition goes, the coop has been forced to sell some of its stores and newly acquired stores to .... tesco of all places? logical decisions are not always made im sure money is involved Off topic and off beam - the Co-op was ordered to sell because their takeover of Somerfield meant there were a number of places where they then owned the two (or more in some cases) major grocery outlets in an area, so there would have been a clear lack of choice and competition. Of 133 disposals, Waitrose took 13, Sainsbury's 22, Morrison's 38 and Tesco, er, six - because in most cases there was already a Tesco nearby, so they would faced the same issue as the Co-op. Other shops have gone to Lidl, Asda, Budgens and Spar among others. The same consideration will apply when it comes to ECML▸ and WCML - the government will never wear the same firm controlling both. Wow! We've gone from Perranwell to supermarkets via the ECML and Italian Fascism. Feels like a forum equivalent of the 'Kevin Bacon' game  |
|
|
|
|
16434
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture - related rail and other transport issues / Re: 'FirstGroup in secret move for National Express', from The Times (29/06/09)
|
on: June 29, 2009, 15:13:10
|
I can't see the Competition Commision allowing a merger/takeover. Why not? The two routes do not compete with each other so it is hard to see how a reduction in competition will lead to problems for the consumer. What I was refering to was First Group taking over/merging with the whole of National Express Group, not just the rail division. Plus we all know that there is actually very little competition across the UK▸ rail network. (Excepting East Coast v West Coast to Scotland, and open access operators) The competition element comes from the franchise tendering process, so just allowing a takeover/merger to go ahead without careful consideration will not be a good thing. And as has been said on this thread, National Express have rejected the takeover approach. Although that is not an unusual first response.......this story is going to break in a big way very soon I feel. |
|
|
|
|
16436
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture - related rail and other transport issues / Re: 'FirstGroup in secret move for National Express', from The Times (29/06/09)
|
on: June 29, 2009, 06:10:48
|
|
I can't see the Competition Commision allowing a merger/takeover. If, as is rumoured, National Express (NE) are struggling with their East Coast franchise, the only option that should be open to them is to 'hand the keys back' to the DfT» . Sea Containers had to do this with their GNER▸ franchise. Of course the problem NE have with doing this is that if they lose one franchise they have to give up their others; something the DfT are probably not keen on seeing happen.
Should NE have to give up NXEC▸ , NXEA▸ and c2c, then a new franchise tendering process will need to be started. Whilst this is ongoing the DfT can allow NE to continue to operate these franchises on a management contract. If NE can't or won't do this then temporary state ownership is the only option, as happened with the South Eastern franchise. Another operator should not be permitted to take over NE. Of course First Group could bid for the franchises if they become available.
I see a time in the not to distant future when NE are out of the rail game altogether and concentrating on what they do best.....running scheduled coaches. They are already divesting themselves of some of their UK▸ bus operation. I think NE probably hold the record for the number of rail franchises lost, so they must be doing something wrong. Admittedly their Wessex franchise did offer a better service to some than the current encumbant. I think there is a website about this somewhere!
|
|
|
|
|
16438
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: FGW Catering
|
on: June 28, 2009, 18:40:21
|
|
I have had the opportunity now to have tried a few different items from the Travelling Chef menu and I have been mightily impressed. I've had the breakfast platter in 1st class and it was delicious (I do wonder however how easy this would be to eat out of a cardboard box in a STD airline seat!). The freshly prepared sandwiches are great and worth the extra cost compared with the buffet sandwich offerings. I'm also impressed that weekday TC‡ trains are now rarely not run as advertised. The problem with TC in the past was that it was so hit and miss. I will miss the Pullman breakfast service up from South Wales but I fully understand FGW▸ withdrawing it (and the other Pullmans) if they were making a loss.
If I plan to be travelling at meal times I now look out for TC services.....anything to avoid the god-awful microwave cheeseburger.
|
|
|
|
|
16439
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture - related rail and other transport issues / Re: High Speed Service from Kent - effect on fares etc
|
on: June 28, 2009, 18:25:19
|
But you're missing the point.
A lot of people will live in Kent because they can catch a train from their local station to London Bridge, Blackfriars, City Thameslink or Cannon Street. Ditto with "leafy Surrey" as you can use "The Drain" (aka Waterloo and City line) to get to The City.
Overall, there will be a net increase in trains. But the reason behind the anger is that services to the aforementioned termini are to be reduced on many lines forcing people to use the HSS▸ , and the higher fares that are brought with it.
And YOU are missing my point. I was questioning the assertion you made in point 2 that most Kent commuters work in City. And working in the City surely now encompasses more than just the traditional 'square mile'. I agree that there will be a reduction of approx 30 weekday services on the SE Mainline, but I think the effect on commuters will be negligible. The SE Mainline is more an inter-urban type of route than a commuter route. There are, according to the draft timetable, going to be approx 100 more services on the SE Metro routes which will greatly benefit commuters. A few people at the extremities of the SE network may be inconvenienced by the loss of a particular train, but as a whole I think more people will benefit. And I echo devon_metro. Nobody is forced to do anything. |
|
|
|
|
16440
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture - related rail and other transport issues / Re: High Speed Service from Kent - effect on fares etc
|
on: June 28, 2009, 17:54:20
|
Don't worry, D/M, there are already complaints about the SE HSS▸ !
1. The prices - +35 % - enough said given that Kent commuters pay through the nose already!
Are these attributable facts or opinion? No 1, I can go with. I do agree that a +35% premium is way too much for such a service. more so in the current economic climate. If loadings are poor I think this will be looked at again. Just concentrating on the '35% premium' for a moment. NO existing fares can rise by 35%, because the 35% only applies to Ebbsfleet as an origin or destination, and this is a new station. This and only this new fare has a premium of 35% over the existing Gravesend fare, however other existing fares from North Kent that join HS1▸ at Ebbsfleet can only rise by a maximum of 30% of the existing Gravesend - London fare. Existing fares from the south east via Ashford can only rise by a maximum of 20% of the existing Ashford - London fareIn both these cases the fares from further away from the HS1 connection will have a lower overall percentage increase, as the preiums are effectively 'lump sums'. Margate via North Kent and HS1 rises by about 10% for instance. In summary because the rise only applies to the HS1 leg - and that is a less significant chunk of longer journeys. '35% all round' is plain and simple exaggeration, based on people repeating what the media have trotted out, including certain rail magazines, who seem to have either failed to establish or have vastly over simplified the facts as published over 2 years ago in search of the snappy headline of 35%. [Maybe this thread does need splitting now Grahame...] Paul My bad, I took Btline's use of +35% as a given. Despite what I said about facts v opinion, I neglected to check this one more thouroughly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
