Jump to content

DY444

Members
  • Content Count

    789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

728 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Now being reported that DfT settled with Arriva because they thought Arriva would win. The DfT have also been fighting a rear guard action in court to prevent certain information being admitted as evidence but the judge keeps overruling them (and is reportedly getting angry at their obfuscation). So far at least the DfT appears to be making a very bad job of defending its position and unless they get their act together quickly then the smart money is on Stagecoach winning.
  2. Periods of Class 90 operation on the ECML were not ad hoc though, they were usually planned to cover shortages due to specific overhaul/refurbishment/modification programmes on the 91s and they were used regularly and to specific diagrams during the periods they were employed. To that extent they were booked for and scheduled to appear on the same services daily during the periods in question.
  3. Punctuality agree. Guarantee getting a seat during peak hours is never going to happen whilst there are peak hours. I commuted into London for the best part of 40 years, not always on the same route because it depended where I was living/working, but when I went into Waterloo in the 80s I don't think I ever got a seat once in the morning despite it being a 12VEP. In fact I used to consider myself fortunate to be able to get on at all because literally every square inch of space was occupied down the whole train. The same still happens today into all the ex-SR London termini in the morning peak. Of course outside London the DfT have perpetuated the short train policy started by BR Regional Railways and, more short sightedly, have tailored the infrastructure to suit so that longer trains isn't just a rolling stock issue. The SR (both pre and post 1948 versions) and NR have managed in a series of projects over the best part of a century to lengthen platforms in the south east such that the worst case anywhere now in ex-SR commuter land is 8 cars. Someone needs to grasp the nettle and do the same in the West Midlands and the major northern cities. Two car trains into a major city in the peak was a bad idea 30 years ago. It is beyond comprehension now.
  4. Not strictly true as Mk4s have been regularly used with Class 90s on the ECML at various times and there are a number of recorded examples of Mk4s being hauled in service by Class 47s without a Class 91 attached including one on the Midland Main Line.
  5. If it happens the Blackpool service is going to be 90s. There have been reports of stored DB examples being prepared at Crewe IED for a potential return to traffic for the service.
  6. That was just a diagramming decision at a timetable change. 387s appeared in dribs and drabs on GN services before that as drivers went through practical handling etc.
  7. Bottom line is that GA were guilty of hyperbole about their fleet replacement. It's not the first complete replacement and I thought they were keeping some Renatus 321s anyway. It doesn't matter where the fleet comes from because new designs always have teething problems.
  8. Whole fleets have been replaced several times before either GA or GN replaced theirs (and GN still have 365s in service so not a complete replacement anyway). 357s on C2C, 185s on TPE, 460s on GX to name but three instances of complete replacement of what went before
  9. You're conflating the definition of the process with the results of applying the process to the individual bids. The former requires no disclosure of commercial information. Stagecoach's grievance is that aspects of the pension evaluation criteria were changed by the DfT after the bids were submitted and without the bidders being advised. Stagecoach say that they were disqualified as a result of the changed criteria and that that is unreasonable because the criteria should not be changed without all concerned being notified (which would make the process transparent) and being given the opportunity to revise their bid or withdraw should they choose to thus avoiding futile ongoing expenditure. That notification of changed criteria could have happened without the DfT giving away any commercial information.
  10. He's not talking about matters of commercial sensitivity, he's referring to the actual bid evaluation process itself ie how the bids are evaluated. That should be both transparent and consistently applied to all bids. The crux of this case is that the DfT are alleged to have moved the goal posts and at least two of the bidders were not aware of that. That should not happen if your process is transparent and fair. When Virgin overturned the decision on the WCML franchise in 2012 the key point there was that the process had not been applied the same way to all bidders. Then and now it was nothing to do with what was actually bid and everything to do with the way the DfT assessed what was bid.
  11. Being reported that Arriva has reached an out of court settlement with the DfT. Terms confidential. Stagecoach continuing with the action. A settlement (albeit with only one party) suggests that the DfT is not 100% confident of its position.
  12. I believe the gist of it is that Stagecoach and Arriva allege that the DfT moved the goalposts wrt to the pension requirements and then adjudicated the bids on the basis of their revised position rather than the one which was bid against. In other words the DfT did not operate the adjudication process in a fair and reasonable way.
  13. It's not Derby. I think its York depot as the signals are of the pattern used in the post war signalling schemes at York and Newcastle (amongst others).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.