Going hungry on East Coast

[Oldfield_Park]

I must admit to having been a fan of the EC breakfasts, I could usually squeeze one in between Peterborough and Doncaster on trips to Sheffield a couple of years ago and, despite the cost, if I could get a good Advance deal it was a very enjoyable part of my journey.

 

Obviously the problem is that I don't travel First Class for any reason other than a treat when I'm making a long journey, so my contribution to EC's catering revenue has been minimal. I should imagine many others are just the same. I know frompast experience with one operator that most First Class passengers set up their laptop or iPad at their table before they even take off their coat. As a result, even a complimentery offer might only be taken up by 25% of passengers (and thats on a good day). As a typical Standard Class passenger I must also confess to not being a regular user of a buffet car, at least not for anything more substantial than a Mars bar. I object to paying upwards of £4 for a sandwich and a cup of tea when I can get a perfectly good wrap, packet of crisps and a drink from Tescos for £2.

 

Alas, I think many share my attitude, and I feel a bit of a hypocrite for bemoaning the loss of on-board catering when I don't use it much myself. But until more companies adapt the approach of EMT by reducing their prices a little (they've knocked best part of £8 off their breakfast, and I can get a 1st Class single from Sheffield to London, with food, for about £16 with my railcard - not bad!) I think on-train dining will continue to subside. Which is a shame.

[APOLLO]

If York-Doncaster suffers so much overcrowding, why not increase the fares? 'Pricing-off' is a well-established method of dampening demand and a lot cheaper than refurbishing rolling stock with higher-density seating.

 

WELL that is precisely what WILL happen throughout the network, as motorists are priced out of their cars and attempt to travel by rail. The powers that run our railways are after profit only, "squeezing the asset" as it is known. Fat chance of sorting increased demand by providing more stock / services - this costs money.

 

Interesting and VERY frightening future our railways have. Only the monied will travel soon.

 

Brit15

[Bon Accord]

All very sad and indicative of the railway industry and indeed the UK as a whole over the last couple of decades.

 

Come back GNER - all is forgiven!

 

(I certainly miss their First Class dining and service - the finest on the privatised national network)

[Richard E]

A lot of the capacity problem is that traffic flow can be tidal on a daily basis and then seasonal on top of that. This morning, as I enjoy a journey north on EC the train is not that busy, 1/2 to 2/3rds full I suspect. This service doesn't stop at Doncaster.

 

This evening as I return home from work the service will, again, not stop at Doncaster but will, I suspect, be standing room only. A lot of that will be down to the long weekend, the royal wedding, and a handful of tourists. Yet yesterday there was room to spare - the TOC doesn't really stand a chance with unpredictable footfall since it is so expensive under the current structure to add stock to units or run additional services. As such the search for savings by the TOC's could be argued to stem from the way the railways were privatised!

 

And don't suggest higher density seating - I'm not that tall but quite long in the leg and I struggle to get comfortable a lot of the time ...

[The Stationmaster]

A lot of the capacity problem is that traffic flow can be tidal on a daily basis and then seasonal on top of that. This morning, as I enjoy a journey north on EC the train is not that busy, 1/2 to 2/3rds full I suspect. This service doesn't stop at Doncaster.

 

This evening as I return home from work the service will, again, not stop at Doncaster but will, I suspect, be standing room only. A lot of that will be down to the long weekend, the royal wedding, and a handful of tourists. Yet yesterday there was room to spare - the TOC doesn't really stand a chance with unpredictable footfall since it is so expensive under the current structure to add stock to units or run additional services. As such the search for savings by the TOC's could be argued to stem from the way the railways were privatised!

 

And don't suggest higher density seating - I'm not that tall but quite long in the leg and I struggle to get comfortable a lot of the time ...

 

All spot on in my view and experience - as I have already said in this thread fixed formation trains are trying to meet all sorts of things over the course of a day/week/season and at times they are not going to offer the right combination of seats for the travel pattern on offer. Having said that the York - Doncaster thing intrigues me as apparently being something which has emerged despite the service on offer The service frequency southbound at 'commuter time' is only hourly and it doesn't get any better until after what i would assume is the morning peak and a lot of the (enforced by railway industry changes) previous footfall no longer exists so I'm left wondering what has driven this increase onto what is undeniably an infrequent service and onto trains which will be very much serving a busy long distance function at the time they are also being seen as commuter services between York and Doncaster? Obviously there is some sort of market there as, taking June as an example compared with next week, the number of trains will shortly double but I do wonder how it's come about as the rail speed advantage over road hasn't changed and the rail fare still remains higher than the marginal costs of using a car. Have businesses relocated?

[Glorious NSE]

Erm - fixed formation train sets date back to the introduction of HSTs in the 1970s on this route, none of ECTs (or NXECs, or GNERs for that matter) rolling stock post-dates privisation so blaming that concept on privatisation is very much a flawed argument.

 

Nonetheless the ECML HST fleet has increased in size (both in numbers of sets and in train length) since privitisation as well, the number of trains being run keeps increasing also by better utilisation - the recent cull of Glasgow trains was to free up more train sets for the core East Coast routes for example.

 

So I can't really agree with the feeling that "nothing has been done" about capacity - I suspect it may well be true that all the *easily acheivable* things to increase capacity have already been done - and that some (like dropping Glasgow) things which may have been easy in technical terms but difficult decisions from a business standpoint have also been done, and I suspect that things from here on start getting expensive in terms of both trains and providing enough infrastructure to run them on. More trains (current price seems to be about £2M per coach btw, so not an insignificant investment), adding additional running lines, grade separation of junctions....kerching, kerching, kerching...

 

It does seem to me that the next big opportunity to increase capacity in terms of actual trains will be as the next generation of trains is introduced (Hitachi SET or whatever) - until then I think *any* operator (regardless of private or state operated) would be bonkers to spend the money modifying trains which may have a very short term of use. And after that when phase 2 of HS2 is built it could conceivably free up some trains/capacity at the Southern end, but you're talking 10 years or so into the future there at a minimum...

 

Bottom line? BR never had to deal with doubling it's passengers, and numbers are still growing.

[Ron Ron Ron]

WELL that is precisely what WILL happen throughout the network, as motorists are priced out of their cars and attempt to travel by rail. The powers that run our railways are after profit only, "squeezing the asset" as it is known. Fat chance of sorting increased demand by providing more stock / services - this costs money.

 

Interesting and VERY frightening future our railways have. Only the monied will travel soon.

Commercial companies are obviously trying to make money out of their operations. Nobody should be surprised by that.

However, someone has to pay for the provision of train services and disproportionate amounts of subsidy is clearly not sustainable.

 

The current review of Britain's railways is rumoured to be recommending that fares should be increased to reflect the true cost, as well as being used to control demand.

Season tickets have been singled out as being particularly over-subsidised and under-priced and some of the examples given in recent press reports clearly demonstrate that some season ticket fares work out ridiculously under-priced on a per-trip basis. In some cases, doubling the cost of some season tickets wouldn't be as outrageous as it may seem at first.

Other un-profitable fares may also come under scrutiny, particularly some of the really cheap "savers"; most of which don't even cover their basic costs or have the intended benefits that come from filling empty seats with "promotional fares".

 

As for catering services; it may be sad to see these being reduced or removed, but if they don't get used and can't pay their way, then it's inevitable they'll go; especially if they're taking up valuable space that can be used for passenger accommodation.

The alternative is to make a basic provision (at whatever level of service) part of the franchise requirement. In which case the TOC will have to find a way of complying and if it's not profitable, the cost will have to go onto the price of all tickets.

 

 

 

 

......Having said that the York - Doncaster thing intrigues me as apparently being something which has emerged despite the service on offer

The service frequency southbound at 'commuter time' is only hourly and it doesn't get any better until after what i would assume is the morning peak and a lot of the (enforced by railway industry changes) previous footfall no longer exists so I'm left wondering what has driven this increase onto what is undeniably an infrequent service and onto trains which will be very much serving a busy long distance function at the time they are also being seen as commuter services between York and Doncaster?

To my mind that opens up another issue that dogs some long distance inter-city travel; the use of these trains as local commuter services.

The conditions that result from the in-rush of large numbers of commuters onto long distance trains, for relatively short hops, IMHO have a very negative impact on the quality and attractiveness of these services.

......but that's another issue and well off-topic.

 

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Erm - fixed formation train sets date back to the introduction of HSTs in the 1970s on this route, none of ECTs (or NXECs, or GNERs for that matter) rolling stock post-dates privisation so blaming that concept on privatisation is very much a flawed argument.

 

Nonetheless the ECML HST fleet has increased in size (both in numbers of sets and in train length) since privitisation as well, the number of trains being run keeps increasing also by better utilisation - the recent cull of Glasgow trains was to free up more train sets for the core East Coast routes for example.

 

So I can't really agree with the feeling that "nothing has been done" about capacity - I suspect it may well be true that all the *easily acheivable* things to increase capacity have already been done - and that some (like dropping Glasgow) things which may have been easy in technical terms but difficult decisions from a business standpoint have also been done, and I suspect that things from here on start getting expensive in terms of both trains and providing enough infrastructure to run them on. More trains (current price seems to be about £2M per coach btw, so not an insignificant investment), adding additional running lines, grade separation of junctions....kerching, kerching, kerching...

 

It does seem to me that the next big opportunity to increase capacity in terms of actual trains will be as the next generation of trains is introduced (Hitachi SET or whatever) - until then I think *any* operator (regardless of private or state operated) would be bonkers to spend the money modifying trains which may have a very short term of use. And after that when phase 2 of HS2 is built it could conceivably free up some trains/capacity at the Southern end, but you're talking 10 years or so into the future there at a minimum...

 

Bottom line? BR never had to deal with doubling it's passengers, and numbers are still growing.

Martyn, I think I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said there.

I stand to be corrected, but wasn't the desire to move to fixed formations a result of late 1960's BR thinking, that led to HST and the aborted APT ?

 

Indeed, it gets seriously expensive from now on and someone will have to pay for it.

One of the shocking facts about HS2 is that it might require at least £2 Billion a year subsidy at todays prices, not to mention that even with something like 20 full trains (each way) a day between Manchester and London, economic fares may make todays full price First tickets look like bargains.

 

The opportunity for 10-car all-electric SETs on the ECML, providing a 30% increase in capacity over a IC225, has gone for the foreseeable future, due to the hullabaloo over the Bi-Mode version and subsequent review and delays to the programme.

Initial trail services were due to begin in 2013, with full deployment of the fleet commencing in 2015 (completed by 2018).

Note: All-electric SETs were to be greater in fleet number, as well as having increased seating capacity and faster acceleration.

 

Now the existing ECML fleet will plod on for many years to come, with only the HSTs being replaced within this decade; so it's likely the new timetable is the last opportunity to add a tiny bit of capacity for the next ten years !!!!!

 

 

 

 

[Oldddudders]

To my mind that opens up another issue that dogs some long distance inter-city travel; the use of these trains as local commuter services.

The conditions that result from the in-rush of large numbers of commuters onto long distance trains, for relatively short hops, IMHO have a very negative impact on the quality and attractiveness of these services.

......but that's another issue and well off-topic.

Not really off-topic. If ECML customers were all long-distance, long-stay folk, then the whole operation would be simpler - and the catering might wash its face.

 

Conflicts between commuting and InterCity TOCs began decades ago, when Reading (probably among others including selected ECML stations e.g. Peterborough) found itself being overwhelmed with London commuters using InterCity trains. There were all sorts of arguments about NSE seasons being available on InterCity trains - or not. Increasing use was made of "stops to pick up only" for down services in the timetable, but commuters are made of sterner stuff, and quickly sussed that one!

 

Times change, and in this case the railway has simply opened up new housing and quality-of-life opportunities for those who can grab them. 50 years ago Kent Coast Electrification did just that, and all sorts of formerly sleepy Wealden villages are now dormitories for the Capital. Recently HSTs and electric-string have done the same for great swathes of the country north and west of London. Whatever the imperfections & conflicts, the railway continues to bring positive change as it surely did in the C19.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Ian, I was thinking more about the short hops between intermediate stations, rather than long distance commuting (which isn't an issue AFAIC).

[multiprinter]

Conflicts between commuting and InterCity TOCs began decades ago, when Reading (probably among others including selected ECML stations e.g. Peterborough) found itself being overwhelmed with London commuters using InterCity trains. There were all sorts of arguments about NSE seasons being available on InterCity trains - or not. Increasing use was made of "stops to pick up only" for down services in the timetable, but commuters are made of sterner stuff, and quickly sussed that one!

 

 

Some weren't quite as bright and a good few excess fares were collected on down trains that were first stop Swindon ! One of the HQ inspectors once reckoned that the best part of a million pounds a year was lost between Reading and Paddington in fare evasion, once Reading became an open station.

 

Ever since its introduction, the Gatwick Express has been 'protected' from commuters by charging higher fares(or other services lower fares if you prefer) - what a pity the same wasn't applied to all Inter City services.

[Glorious NSE]

Ever since its introduction, the Gatwick Express has been 'protected' from commuters by charging higher fares(or other services lower fares if you prefer) - what a pity the same wasn't applied to all Inter City services.

 

Drastically off topic now, but that does lead to the current slightly bonkers situation, where your particular "premium" Gatwick Express might not be just a train specifically to Gatwick for premium ticket holders but might also be carrying Brighton passengers who aren't paying a premium, and in any case both are run by the same TOC potentially using the same stock as the following "not a Gatwick Express"

[The Stationmaster]

Martyn, I think I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said there.

I stand to be corrected, but wasn't the desire to move to fixed formations a result of late 1960's BR thinking, that led to HST and the aborted APT ?

 

More or less exactly that. Partly a result of the sort of thinking Beeching introduced about idle assets (e.g coaches sitting in sidings and making only half a dozen trips a year cost money in unused rolling stock and otherwise in unnecessary sidings) but it went a bit further as the cost of running depots to add to and reduce formations was considerable and the chance was undoubtedly seen of taking the dmu/unit train concept a step further. There were, I can recollect all too well, plenty of folk who argued against the fixed formation concept for the sort of reasons I've already listed but their arguments lost in the light of harsh economic reality. For example I was involved with a passenger yard which dealt with loco hauled sets, among other things, and the cost of dealing with them including strengthening and reducing etc still amounted to two fully manned pilot locos on every shift round the clock in the early 1980s - those 9 men (plus relief) have now largely vanished as the loco hauled sets have gone; and all that was just the sharp end of the considerable organisation needed to continually tailor train size to small variations in demand and train use.

 

 

The opportunity for 10-car all-electric SETs on the ECML, providing a 30% increase in capacity over a IC225, has gone for the foreseeable future, due to the hullabaloo over the Bi-Mode version and subsequent review and delays to the programme.

Initial trail services were due to begin in 2013, with full deployment of the fleet commencing in 2015 (completed by 2018).

Note: All-electric SETs were to be greater in fleet number, as well as having increased seating capacity and faster acceleration.

 

No doubt absolutely true but at the same time unless demand is spread by, usually, a pricing mechanism (which doesn't/can't always work of course) it doesn't matter within reason what size a train is - at part of the day/week/season it will probably be full but at other times it or parts of it will be far from fully occupied and deadweight will be moving around to no effect. (that is a slight exaggeration because the deadweight is in most cases on British journey lengths moving to somewhere where it is needed for the train's next or subsequent working and the deadweight is probably cheaper than the complications of sub-trains joining/splitting or vehicles being shunted in and out).

 

Now the existing ECML fleet will plod on for many years to come, with only the HSTs being replaced within this decade; so it's likely the new timetable is the last opportunity to add a tiny bit of capacity for the next ten years !!!!!

That is probably the most likely outcome although sometimes things can be adjusted by altering stopping patterns.

[Oakydoke]

I hear that press stories have suggested that in addition to pricing being used as a mechanism to control peak demand, other options now being considered include no walk-on fares being available during defined peaks (advance booking and tiered peak season tickets only) and stricter restrictions on baggage, similar to airline allowances (number of baggage items and size).

[DavidH]

Going back to the Doncaster-York issue, and the question "where did the demand come from?", was asked. "What has driven this increase onto what is undeniably an infrequent service and onto trains which will be very much serving a busy long distance function at the time they are also being seen as commuter services between York and Doncaster?" (said Stationmaster).

 

Train: 25 minutes or so.

Non-car alternative: 2 hrs to 2.5 hrs, but you have to change at Selby; there is no regular direct bus service.

 

There is one direct coach service, takes 55 minutes, at 4am.

 

Or you could drive down the A1.

[Richard E]

Just covering the Doncaster to York issue that folk seem puzzled about:

 

First down service in the morning from KGX arrives in York at 8:30 and stops all stations en-route. Cross Country arrive at 7:27 or 8:47, so for commuter traffic from Doncaster it's a no brainer really.

 

After May 22nd the Up service at 17:21 retimes to 17:31 and changes from stopping at Peterborough only to stopping at Doncaster and Newark as well. Alternatives are 16:29, 16:40 or 17:34 with a further service at 18:01. The TOC's are EC, Transpennine/East Coast for the 16:40 (as it goes via Leeds!), EC, XC and finally EC. The 16:40 costs twice as much as the others. If you leave work at any time after about 16:15 which train, assuming you are not within 5 minutes or so of the station, are you going to get?

 

What does this have to do with catering you ask? Well a train which is standing room only stops most people from reaching the catering facilities and, of course, stops any trolley service dead in its tracks.

 

And I do feel that the current structure does cause problems as I believe access charges are based upon the number of axles per pass over a route - it is real money moving between independent companies each of which wants a profit rather than it all remaining within the same company...

[The Stationmaster]

Just covering the Doncaster to York issue that folk seem puzzled about:

 

First down service in the morning from KGX arrives in York at 8:30 and stops all stations en-route. Cross Country arrive at 7:27 or 8:47, so for commuter traffic from Doncaster it's a no brainer really.

 

After May 22nd the Up service at 17:21 retimes to 17:31 and changes from stopping at Peterborough only to stopping at Doncaster and Newark as well. Alternatives are 16:29, 16:40 or 17:34 with a further service at 18:01. The TOC's are EC, Transpennine/East Coast for the 16:40 (as it goes via Leeds!), EC, XC and finally EC. The 16:40 costs twice as much as the others. If you leave work at any time after about 16:15 which train, assuming you are not within 5 minutes or so of the station, are you going to get?

 

What does this have to do with catering you ask? Well a train which is standing room only stops most people from reaching the catering facilities and, of course, stops any trolley service dead in its tracks.

 

And I do feel that the current structure does cause problems as I believe access charges are based upon the number of axles per pass over a route - it is real money moving between independent companies each of which wants a profit rather than it all remaining within the same company...

 

Thanks but as far as your final comment is concerned there's more to it than that. Revenue is effectively divorced from access costs (and ECML would pay more for the latter anyway as traction electricity is still charged additionally AFAIK) and is divided - apart from 'special offers' on the basis of number of people making a journey in any stated time divided over the services run in that time segment. Thus if you take the period 16.25 - 18.01 and look at it in a very simplistic way 3 trains will be run by ECML and one by XC (the other one won't count as it's not direct and that no doubt explains the higher fare) thus ECML would get 75% of the York-Doncaster revenue accrued in that period and XC would get 25% although in practice the maths are much more refined than that and the time bands are broken down in all sorts of ways. By adding a Doncaster stop ECML is - on the face of it - being kind to the punters but what adding that stop also does is alter the revenue split in that timeband and by moving from 17.21 to 17.31 that also alters the weighting of the split between ECML and XC. What all of that boils down to is that by adding a stop and moving its train time ECML will pick up a much greater share of York-Doncaster revenue in that period and XC will lose out, irrespective of the number of York-Doncaster passengers each operator actually carries (but then fewer people would in any case use the XC service for obvious reasons) And now you know how to make extra income as a franchised train operator, and why open access operators are not well thought of by some other operators.

[Richard E]

Interesting - it's not as simple as some folk suggest at all - and some of my info comes from inside the industry, obviously not the right 'inside' bit though.

[APOLLO]

I hear that press stories have suggested that in addition to pricing being used as a mechanism to control peak demand, other options now being considered include no walk-on fares being available during defined peaks (advance booking and tiered peak season tickets only) and stricter restrictions on baggage, similar to airline allowances (number of baggage items and size).

 

As I wrote earlier - the double nightmare has arrived of ever higher oil prices, and ever higher rail fares due to private greed / underinvestment. Ah, all is well in la-la land, royal wedding tomorrow should do wonders for Daves "U.K. Happiness" index.

 

Bike or shanks pony soon, and beware of new taxes on those as well !!

 

Happy commuting.

 

Brit15

[Ron Ron Ron]

.... the double nightmare has arrived of ever higher oil prices, and ever higher rail fares due to private greed / underinvestment.

With due respect; when the price of oil goes up, the price of everything goes up with it.

If as expected, oil prices go sky high as we approach Peak Production, then the economic effects on all aspects of commerce, manufacturing and transportation will be quite profound.

The world runs on an oil based economy and it's not simply limited to putting petrol in cars and other vehicles.

 

When it gets to the point that driving is unsustainable with regard to fuel costs, it's likely that the economic damage will mean far fewer people will be travelling, or will be able to travel. The cost of rail travel will probably be much higher too.

Even if a smoother transition to alternative fuel sources and importantly alternative raw materials, is achieved, it's likely that the patterns of movement and mobility will have to be somewhat curtailed compared with today.

If we were pursuing a straightforward (and simpler) Green debate, then the more environmentally sympathetic conclusion would be to travel less.

 

 

 

[buckdancer]

WELL that is precisely what WILL happen throughout the network, as motorists are priced out of their cars and attempt to travel by rail. The powers that run our railways are after profit only, "squeezing the asset" as it is known. Fat chance of sorting increased demand by providing more stock / services - this costs money.

 

Interesting and VERY frightening future our railways have. Only the monied will travel soon.

 

Brit15

Now, being Australian, I know only a bit about for instance the ECML.

However, it seems to me that the reason a coach costs 2m quid is that it has to be designed for very high speed and safety as well as being air conditioned and comfortable.

And someone has to help pay off the 2 million.

Is there a case then for a sort of "cattle class"?

Build cheap coaches designed for lowish speeds and with no air con and few creature comforts?

Push out a burst of high speed trains from Kings Cross then a few minutes later push out the cattle class trains and loop them as the next high speed ones catch up.

Just a thought, but it might keep prices down for the man in the street.

Awaits severe abuse....

[Oldddudders]

Build cheap coaches designed for lowish speeds and with no air con and few creature comforts?

Push out a burst of high speed trains from Kings Cross then a few minutes later push out the cattle class trains and loop them as the next high speed ones catch up.

Just a thought, but it might keep prices down for the man in the street.

Awaits severe abuse....

Actually that sort of operating distinction already exists on ECML and other InterCity routes, with a second operator running the commuter services, which do indeed have to dive into every loop for the important high-speed train to pass. London Midland, the second op out of Euston, has trouble getting off the slow line at all. Welwyn comes to mind as the key remaining bottleneck on ECML - just as it was 20+ years ago when I was asked what I'd do about it at interview. I didn't get the job... Sadly, I'm not sure the prices on commuter trains reflect their lowly status & longer journey times in this respect.

[caradoc]

As I wrote earlier - the double nightmare has arrived of ever higher oil prices, and ever higher rail fares due to private greed / underinvestment. Ah, all is well in la-la land, royal wedding tomorrow should do wonders for Daves "U.K. Happiness" index.

 

Bike or shanks pony soon, and beware of new taxes on those as well !!

 

Happy commuting.

 

Brit15

 

Not quite sure how 'ever higher rail fares' can be blamed on private greed and under-investment; Every private company has to make a profit or it will go out of business, and the amount of tax-payer's money spent on our railways is stupendous (partly, but not solely, due to the structure of the rail industry).

 

This country has to decide what it expects of our rail industry; Do we want:

 

A non-subsidised, commercially run profitable business, in which case Beeching and Serpell will look like a tea party compared to the cuts which would be required;

A free-at-point-of-use social service, like the NHS, available equally to all, which would make today's rail subsidy look like pocket money;

Or something in between, which is what we have had since 1948 - BR was required to operate on a commercial basis, and fare rises and service cuts were not exactly unknown then.

 

I do suspect that if McNulty recommends susbtantial fare rises and/or service cuts, the public outcry will dissuade the politicians from implementation. There will remain the question of balancing commercial objectives with social need.

 

PS We already have cattle-class trains in this country.....They're called Pacers !

[Glorious NSE]

And I do feel that the current structure does cause problems as I believe access charges are based upon the number of axles per pass over a route - it is real money moving between independent companies each of which wants a profit rather than it all remaining within the same company...

 

If your point was wholly true in isolation and the main concern of a TOC is avoiding access charges then companies would never actively try to put on more and more services (to the point where very expensive infrastructure works are starting to be needed to handle the increases) - and they definately would not have extended trains - regardless of overcrowding in that scenario the evil capitalists would be hard at work trying hard to justify shortening them and running them less often...

 

But that's the opposite of what can be seen to have happenned through the history of the ECML franchises, where we see more and longer trains over the course of the franchise.

 

And just before we all get too caught up by how over history some operators get painted as "the good guys" and some as "the bad guys", the much missed GNER would then have to come under the banner of "the evil capitalists" along with NXEC, whilst the current operator East Coast is owned by Directly Operated Railways.....the DfT - so for the moment it's effectively re-nationalised!

[The Stationmaster]

If your point was wholly true in isolation and the main concern of a TOC is avoiding access charges then companies would never actively try to put on more and more services (to the point where very expensive infrastructure works are starting to be needed to handle the increases) - and they definately would not have extended trains - regardless of overcrowding in that scenario the evil capitalists would be hard at work trying hard to justify shortening them and running them less often...

 

But that's the opposite of what can be seen to have happenned through the history of the ECML franchises, where we see more and longer trains over the course of the franchise.

 

And just before we all get too caught up by how over history some operators get painted as "the good guys" and some as "the bad guys", the much missed GNER would then have to come under the banner of "the evil capitalists" along with NXEC, whilst the current operator East Coast is owned by Directly Operated Railways.....the DfT - so for the moment it's effectively re-nationalised!

 

Rather amusingly the original owner of the GNER franchise was indeed seen as as something of 'an evil capitalist' when privatisation detail was being developed and a number of people in various official circles were very keen not to see that company involved while being very keen, although I believe mainly due to 'political impetus' to see another 'well-known capitalist' very much involved. Ironically it has always struck me that the allegedly 'evil' one and his very able management team did an excellent job under the GNER banner (I know some disagree with that view but I speak as I found as a passenger on their trains and occasional contact with some of their management) while my views about, and experience of, the other one and some of his efforts are probably best left unsaid in these polite circles.