| Archived Save the Train forum articles - 2005 to 2010. See below
Looking for another operator - 348/1022 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Wednesday, 26th July 2006 As well as franchised operators, train services can be provided under an "Open Access" program. I'm advised that an established operator and a well prepared case would very likely get ORR (Office of Rail Regulation) approval for such a service, and we've started to approach such possible operators and the press too ... See Press Release and Detailed Case Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1024 Written by Sion Bretton on Wednesday, 26th July 2006 Graham Like reading the detailed case, I like to know when the last time a First Group Manager was on a train that went through Melksham. Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1026 Written by Nick Field on Wednesday, 26th July 2006 Well if First can't see sense then there is nothing I would like to see more than South West Trains running the service. Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1028 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Thursday, 27th July 2006 There's a considerable number of TOCs (train operating companies) out there and in some circumstances an Open Access provision wouldn't have to be the obvious local choice from the next franchise over. On the East Coast main line you have Great Central coming in (big news in the press at the moment) and you also have Hull Trains (which I think is part of the First group). That's *not* a directional hint, by the way .... Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1032 Written by Lee on Thursday, 27th July 2006 Hull Trains is indeed part of First Group (link below.) http://www.hulltrains.co.uk/index.html Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1039 Written by Sion Bretton on Thursday, 27th July 2006 Do First want to be the "British Rail" Company? run the whole rail network Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1041 Written by Lee on Thursday, 27th July 2006 Here is a link that contains details of First's current rail operations. http://www.firstgroup.com/railhome/rail_home1.php# First are also bidding for the South Western Franchise (link below.) http://www.firstgroup.com/railhome/sw_franchise.php Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1043 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Thursday, 27th July 2006 [quote author=Sion Bretton link=topic=348.msg1039#msg1039 date=1154022338] Do First Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1045 Written by Nick Field on Thursday, 27th July 2006 [quote author=Lee link=topic=348.msg1041#msg1041 date=1154023396] First are also bidding for the South Western Franchise (link below.) http://www.firstgroup.com/railhome/sw_franchise.php [/quote] I hope first dont get the South Western Franchise - Nothing personal against them but I just cant help hoping that they dont. Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1046 Written by Nick Field on Thursday, 27th July 2006 Forgive my ignorance but what are the main differences between an open access operator and a franchise? Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1047 Written by Lee on Thursday, 27th July 2006 Nick , here is an article related to your query (link below.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5221174.stm The quotes that explain the difference are these. "The ORR decision at the centre of the court ruling was to grant two train operating companies - Hull Trains Company Ltd and Grand Central - the right to run "open access" passenger services on the East Coast Main Line. GNER, which has a franchise agreement to run intercity trains on the East Coast Main Line, had also argued that the ORR decision amounted to "an unlawful grant of state aid" in favour of the two other companies. As franchise rail operator, GNER has to make three payments to gain access to the tracks: a fixed charge, a variable charge, and a franchise premium of Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1049 Written by Nick Field on Friday, 28th July 2006 Thanks Lee that makes it clear. Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1051 Written by aik4on on Friday, 28th July 2006 It would be truly great if this came to fruition but, in reality, the root cause of this whole issue is that the Melksham service isn't profitable and so I can't see another operator wishing to come in and run it under open access. What the service really needs is public subsidy and if this isn't coming from the DfT then it might be something that local councils could contribute to. As I understand it, First will run additional services if they are part-funded (making them at least cost neutral) - see here for a good example [url]http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=370[/url] Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1053 Written by Lee on Friday, 28th July 2006 [quote author=aik4on link=topic=348.msg1051#msg1051 date=1154080586] It would be truly great if this came to fruition but, in reality, the root cause of this whole issue is that the Melksham service isn't profitable and so I can't see another operator wishing to come in and run it under open access. What the service really needs is public subsidy and if this isn't coming from the DfT then it might be something that local councils could contribute to. As I understand it, First will run additional services if they are part-funded (making them at least cost neutral) - see here for a good example [url]http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=370[/url] [/quote] Sorry , but im afraid that I have to disagree. You may not have seen Graham's detailed figures contained in the link below. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/open.html Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1054 Written by aik4on on Friday, 28th July 2006 If there was any chance of profit, FGW would run the service! Where significant revisions to the Dec 06 timetable have been made, it's because the DfT have paid for them. I understand the Swindon to Southampton service was subsidised to the tune of Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1055 Written by Lee on Friday, 28th July 2006 [quote author=aik4on link=topic=348.msg1054#msg1054 date=1154084623] If there was any chance of profit, FGW would run the service![/quote] Maybe , but then First also run freight trains. [quote author=aik4on link=topic=348.msg1054#msg1054 date=1154084623] Where significant revisions to the Dec 06 timetable have been made, it's because the DfT have paid for them.[/quote] Maybe , but why Ivybridge & Southampton - Westbury but not Melksham? [quote author=aik4on link=topic=348.msg1054#msg1054 date=1154084623]I understand the Swindon to Southampton service was subsidised to the tune of Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1056 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Friday, 28th July 2006 [quote author=aik4on link=topic=348.msg1054#msg1054 date=1154084623] If there was any chance of profit, FGW would run the service![/quote] .... and if there is a significant chance of getting a subsidy, FGW will go for that too ... Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1059 Written by aik4on on Friday, 28th July 2006 GB Railfreight is a tiny part of First's business compared to Great Western which accounts for the largest part of the Rail division's circa Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1060 Written by Lee on Friday, 28th July 2006 [quote author=aik4on link=topic=348.msg1059#msg1059 date=1154095711] GB Railfreight is a tiny part of First's business compared to Great Western which accounts for the largest part of the Rail division's circa Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1064 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Friday, 28th July 2006 These are good questions, Lee ... and I have written to aikon asking him a couple of questions concerning his sources too; I agree with much of what he writes (for example, that we're getting the dogends off the Stroud Valley), but disagree with other suggestions such as the comment that First are not joined up. Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1074 Written by aik4on on Saturday, 29th July 2006 I'm certainly not suggesting that First and, in particular, GB Railfreight does not want to expands its business. Of course it does. However, the impact of the Melksham single line on the growth of this business is absolutely miniscule because the line is in no way congested. You could double or even treble the current number of passenger services on this line and still have plenty of capacity for a massive increase in freight traffic. The biggest 'brake' on the growth of freight traffic is the same as it is for 'passenger' traffic - the congested lines in the south-east and midlands and, in particular, peak-time paths into and out of London. As Graham says, we are veering a little off-topic here. My point with this is really that the reason why we will have only two services a day from Dec 06 rather than five is nothing to do with freight traffic it is because the services were heavily subsidised for Wessex and that subsidy has been removed for the Greater Western franchise. Most people who use the current service will continue to be able to use FGW services (albeit with an inconvenient change at Bath Spa and a longer journey time) if they wish to and therefore the only passenger income lost to FGW will be the relatively small amount from Melksham itself and the few people who can't be bothered with the hassle of a change at Bath. Re: Looking for another operator - 348/1075 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Saturday, 29th July 2006 I've been struck by just how much freight comes through Melksham already. I've had link to index of articles |
|||
Save the Train was the campaign to bring an approriate train service back to and through Melksham. Most big contributors are still around writing at the Coffee shop forum where new members are very welcome. The train has been saved - sort of - we have stepped back up from an unusable service to a poorish one but it's doing very well. We did that through setting up the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership. That fulfilled its early objectives; it has been taken over by local and regional government types who are now doing medium and long term work. The team from this forun can also be found at the Melksham Rail User Group (which was the Melksham Rail Development Group at the time these articles were written and we had no users. We mustn't loose sight, though, that the train service remains poor and needs our community support in marketing and campaigning to keep it going in a positive direction ... and all the more so when we're expecting to find a different normallity once we get out of the Coronavirus Pandemic and head for zero carbon via the climate crisis. Yes, it's saved ... it's now a key community facility ... the need for enhancement and the strong and near-universal local support remain, and the rail industry and goverment remain slow to move and provide the enhancements even to level us up with other towns. Please support the Melksham Rail User Group - now very much in partnership rather than protest with the rail industry and local government, including GWR, TransWilts and unitary and town councils. And please use the trains and buses, and cycle and walk when you can. -- Graham Ellis, (webmaster), February 2021 | |||
|
|||
Further Information:
Home
Current Summary
Daily update
User forum
Consultation
Service now
Service future
Future Analysis
Recent Statistics
Recent letters
Letter to DfT
Save the train
Presentation
Support us
Other Maps
Station facilities
Station approach
Pictures
Trains diverted
History
About Melksham
Site Map
About this site