Mike_Walker

They would appreciate it more if you'd actually bought the ticket from them rather than on line then pick it up. That way it is an additional sale counted to the BO.

That's unless those redeployed staff hadn't left already of their own volition. I know that's what would have happened at my local station and it would have saved on redundancy payments.

Off topic, I apologise, but several years ago I was chasing Southern Pacific 4449 up the Feather River Canyon on its way back to Portland. BNSF had provided a brand new GE also numbered 4449 as helper right behind the kettle - I understand it had been rushed to California from the factory especially. Anyway, with both crews talking to the dispatcher over the radio, the latter was getting totally confused handling messages from BNSF 4449 and SP 4449!

Except they've just been through a refurbishment so perhaps the seats have been replaced to match the forthcoming Avanti IETs...

I also understand that the Rolling Stock Library that manages the allocation of class and vehicle numbers operates a moratorium system that permits reuse of numbers but only after a set dormant period.

They most certainly were Class 43s throughout their lives. Classes 253 and 254 were the numbers given to the complete sets and were originally applied to the power car noses but this was soon abandoned when it became obvious that the power car maintenance cycles differed widely from that of the trailers and therefore keeping them together was inefficient. Likewise, attempts at keeping complete sets of trailers together didn't always work. Laira for example would usually reform at least one set a day to switch out a defective vehicle and replace with a spare; hence the the regular sighting of odd liveries in sets during times of livery transition. Classes 253 and 254 continued to be used in operating publications such as the Sectional Appendix up to the present as a convenient way of identifying the different length sets and where they could or could not be used as an example. GWR refers to its short "Castle" sets as Class 255 although I'm not too sure how "official" that is. Other class numbers have been reused. The D600 series Warships were, on paper, allocated Class 41 although their demise in December 1968 coincided with the introduction of the TOPS classifications and Class 41 was used for the prototype HST power cars 41001 and 41002. These later became W43000 and W43001 in the carriage series (pre-TOPS for those) which were then followed by the production power cars starting at W43002. When the power cars became regarded as independent locomotives in their own right they became Class 43. And, of course much in our thoughts at the moment, the Southern "Booster" locos were Class 70 now reused for the Freightliner and Colas GE locomotives.

Don't need them, they've got "boosters". Hat, coat...

I've heard a lot of criticism of Chiltern's TVMs. They appear to be particularly poor.

Along with Audis, BMWs and Mercedes...

At our local station, on the next branch to Mike's, the clerk in the BO says he has an average 5-6 enquiries every day (only open Mon-Sat mornings) from folk who've encountered problems trying to book on line or with the TVM.

It was easy to close ticket offices on LU because of the simple fare structure which can be handled effectively by TVMs. This does not translate to the national network with its huge range of destinations and complex fares. Same goes for tap in tap out contactless payments. Of course a dim witted SoS or civil servant wouldn't be able to grasp that.

Hey guys, relax. When Mark said "seaworthy" it was with tongue in cheek and was a reflection of his frustration at the trains not doing what was claimed.

In his weekly staff address this week Mark Hopwood related that he was going to dig out the 2016 paperwork from Hitachi where they gave assurances the IET would be, in his words, 'seaworthy'. They're not.

But this case has nothing to do with removing route knowledge. I understand the driver involved still signs both routes. The issue was that the train was being misrouted without prior warning so the driver correctly stopped and challenged the route.

Mark told me once that when he arrived at FGW he found trains leaving Paddington late because drivers couldn't be bothered to drink up their tea and vacate the mess room on time. He said you can't condone such practices but if you treat your staff like s**t don't be surprised if they take that attitude. His approach is that every member of staff is there to perform a vital role in the company from deputy MD down to cleaners and you treat them all equally and with respect. In his time morale has soared at GWR. By contrast, after Adrian Shooter retired from Chiltern that morale their is on the floor.

Avanti has not been absorbed into the Government's Directly Operated Railways although it is micro-managed by the DfT just like the other TOCs.

But, as we all know - and not just us enthusiasts, this plan originated from within the DfT not the TOCs. They were just the fall guys and are reported to be "furious" as a result.

I thought we only did that at Swindon Panel! Don't feel so bad now . 😀

This example was at Wallingford a couple of years ago but I think it might have been scrapped since. I was told it was ex-Royal Navy.

In the case of GWR as an example, until recently they had three grades of driver: HSS basically those originally employed but GWT/FGW; LTV, the former Thames guys and West, the former Wessex guys. They all basically retained their former T&Cs. The latter two have now been replaced by a new, single grade called "GWR Driver" with enhanced conditions but HSS lives on although no new drivers will be appointed to the role so it will eventually die out although I'm told that might still take 30 years! As HSS vacancies occur the roles are filled by GWR Drivers.

All very true but in the case of GWR it's the result of a rare incidence of the DfT getting its way over the operator.

The braking curve of a 185 is inferior to that of the other DMUs covered by the SP restrictions due to the extra weight which is why that doesn't apply.

That comment is grossly unfair. First have a varied record I'll grant you but in some cases, GWR for example, they are generally excellent as are their two open access operations, Hull Trains and Lumo. In the case of TPE, and to a lesser extent Avanti and SWR, most of the problems are directly attributable to those clueless civil servants at the DfT micromanaging those businesses and countermanding the franchise management decisions. These civil servants think they know how to run a railway and those that do, don't whilst their ministers are even worse. The last SoS we had that knew anything about railways was soon moved on - anyone who's watched "Yes Minister" will know how it works. Like many businesses, not just on the railways, a lot depends the on local management. GWR (or FGW as it then was) was a real basket case until late 2008 when Mark Hopwood took over as MD. His in depth knowledge of how to really manage a railway and, equally importantly, manage and relate to his staff at all levels has seen the company turned around. You'll now find a high level of customer satisfaction and staff morale and the company has won many prestigious industry awards including Train Operator of the Year. Yes, things go pear-shaped more often than is desirable but it's rarely self-inflicted but more often the result of infrastructure, weather and PHBT issues plus, of course, the failure of sHitachi to deliver a daily fleet of fully operational trains preferring instead to take cover in the most obscure clauses of contracts written by the DfT - without operator involvement, naturally. After an unprecedented 15 years in the post (he's the longest serving TOC MD by a wide margin) he's now the go to person for advice. Chris Green once told me that he thinks there isn't a senior manager in the industry that doesn't have him on speed-dial to seek advice. Mark, remember, was seconded to SWR a couple of years ago to sort it out before handing over to his protégé Claire Mann. They wanted him to do the same at Avanti but he resisted! It also helps that Mark is one of the few managers in the industry prepared to stand up to the DfT and tell them where to go. The DfT influence on GWR is considerably less than with other TOCs as a result. It is noticeable that those TOCs that have been taken under the arm of DOR don't seem to suffer so greatly from DfT micromanaging. Mark says when he retires he's going to write a book - it will be an explosive read I can assure you! We jokingly say it will be called: I Too Tried To Run A Railway.

Which is exactly what he did with D1010 masquerading as D1035 for some time.

Correct. The SP applies to classes 15x, 16x and 17x but not to class 185. This is because of their additional weight and braking performance.