On 22/06/2018 15:48, Robin wrote:

What I did find odd was your view that it is self-evident railways
are "better run as a single not for profit organisation" when yet
just about every EU State[1] no longer does so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Railway_Package

[2]
https://www.lvm.fi/en/-/factsheet-74...untries-949736



"With the exception of Finland, Ireland and Luxembourg,


and Malta and Cyprus...

all other Member
States of the European Union have already more than one operator
providing passenger rail transport services."



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 22/06/2018 15:32, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:58:46 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 22/06/2018 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes:


https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part

-2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.


Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

Nothing odd about it , its an EU requirement for open access to private
operators. Directive 91/440 you'll find.


Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things
that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded
some people to vote "Exit".

BevanPrice wrote:
On 22/06/2018 15:32, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:58:46 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 22/06/2018 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes:


https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part

-2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.


Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

Nothing odd about it , its an EU requirement for open access to private
operators. Directive 91/440 you'll find.


Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things
that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded
some people to vote "Exit".

Why? It didn't have any effect in the UK. If anything, the EU is pushing
other countries to at least partially adopt our policies.

BevanPrice wrote:
On 22/06/2018 15:32, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:58:46 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 22/06/2018 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes:


https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part

-2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.


Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

Nothing odd about it , its an EU requirement for open access to private
operators. Directive 91/440 you'll find.

Yes - just one example of EU and its commissioners meddling in things
that ought to be none of its concern - examples which probably persuaded
some people to vote "Exit".

But the EU commissioners are nothing but the appointees of elected
governments. Was this a question of the “EU� setting a requirement or
national governments wanting to do a thing that they were worried would be
unpopular, so laundering the legislation through the EU?

Robin

In article ,
Robin wrote:

Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

With the result that trains in all EU countries are now run by the
national railway companies of many EU countries (but not ours, because
we don't have one).

--
Jonathan Amery. There's an ocean of darkness and I drown in the night
##### Till I come through the darkness to the ocean of light.
#######__o You can lock me in prison but the light will be free,
#######'/ 'And I walk in the glory of the light', said he.

Jonathan Amery wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:

Odd then that competition for operating rail services has been spreading
across the EU.

With the result that trains in all EU countries are now run by the
national railway companies of many EU countries (but not ours, because
we don't have one).

You'll see National Express branded trains in Germany.

On 22/06/18 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part
-2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation. How well BR would have managed, we'll never know.

Certes wrote:
On 22/06/18 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:24:01 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
A sorry tale with many deserving of blame, and no heroes:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/...ink-fails-part
-2-the-plan-that-went-wrong/

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation.

DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment
and training has happened across other franchise changes...


Anna Noyd-Dryver

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message news
.. Certes wrote:

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation
when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a
long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation
just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation.

.. DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment
and training has happened across other franchise changes...

Did the franchisee have to tell the DfT about recruitment and training in a
timely fashion or indeed at all?

If so and for example "GTR didn't have enough" should have been obvious in
say February.

--
Mike D

Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message news
. Certes wrote:

One thing I hadn't appreciated was how much of the plan depended on GBRf
drivers, because GTR didn't have enough.

The real mystery is why the government persists with rail privitisation
when
its just one disaster after another. You'd think eventually reality would
creep in to their collective conciousness but it would been not. I'm a
long
way from being a socialist but this is one of the areas privitisation
just
has not worked and it would be better run as a single not for profit
organisation.

If London Reconnections is to be believed, the former franchisee stopped
hiring drivers when they discovered that they would be recruiting and
training them for the benefit of a rival company. That's certainly due
to privatisation.

DfT could have instructed them to keep recruiting. Continuing recruitment
and training has happened across other franchise changes...

Did the franchisee have to tell the DfT about recruitment and training in a
timely fashion or indeed at all?

If so and for example "GTR didn't have enough" should have been obvious in
say February.

It really is worth reading the report I linked at the beginning of the
thread. For example, your question is answered:

Quote:

We have highlighted the issue of too few drivers before. This was most
notably a problem in July 2016 when Southern (part of the new GTR
franchise) were forced to introduced a revised timetable due to lack of
drivers. The primary cause of the issue was that DfT had not intervened to
stop GTR’s predecessors for the previous Thameslink franchise, First
Capital Connect, from cancelling their driving recruitment programme the
moment they knew they would not get the Thameslink franchise. Once they
took over, GTR found that that they were considerably short of the total
number of drivers they expected to have to cover the various different
train companies in their charge (Thameslink, Great Northern, Gatwick
Express and Southern).

It took a lot of hard work and a massive recruitment programme by GTR to
overcome this problem but now GTR insists that shortage of drivers as such
is not an issue and they are currently actually over establishment –
incidentally, Northern Rail say the same thing. Whether the establishment
level is the correct realistic number of drivers a franchise requires is
another matter – possibly not, in this case, as we shall see.