I also wondered about this, I can only assume they were loosely referring to "new to EMR" trains (ie 170s) and that the knock on is getting the training done. Doesn't make it any less poor, in fact just makes them look sillier.
Not implying that the passengers who have lost their service have done so because they are having new trains!
I don't recall ever encountering such a fiddle with the tickets. The most likely candidates to find without a ticket on departure from Derby have gateline passes.
Indeed. Not much concelation to the people who, like myself, have found their commuter trains now cancelled.
Guards are in dispute but there's no OT ban at all, if we weren't working overtime then things would be much worse than they are now, some days since the May TT change the daily sheets have been posted with 10+ vacancies over approx 55 running turns.
I'd definitely agree with this from my experience, and even the fairly quick Trent Barton bus service into Derby is nowhere near as convenient, and I'd already made my point of people travelling onwards toward Birmingham, although if XC are adding some calls then this would be covered off, although not part of the EMR masterplan.
A complete shambles!
Lilian Greenwood MP has been on the case by the looks of it - https://twitter.com/LilianGreenwood/status/1406297742255833094
The lack of Southern 170s should have been foreseen at the bidding stage - there was way that the battery EU scheme put forward was remotely likely to come to fruition by this stage. There was also seemingly no contingency for the new fleets at Tyesley or on Anglia to be delayed - a seemingly inevitable part of fleet introduction. It is unfortunate that, with the disqualification of the other bids at the bidding stage over the pension issues, there was no competition. Of course, we do not know how deliverable those other bids would have been - it seemed inevitable at that stage that the 156s would come from Crown Point so those issues at least would have occured come what may.
The franchise bidding process, hopefully now dead and buried, more or less required that the bidders made unrealistic assumptions if they were to have a hope of winning. This is most clearly seen in the revenue projections but also applies to delivery issues such as where to get the rolling stock, and also to assumptions regarding timely (or any) completion of infrastructure works. As they are not the bidder's problem, the bidder is off the hook in the likely event that they don't happen, which provides an excuse to re-open negotiation as it's usually about the same time the franchise's finances start looking sick.
That's what you get with any kind of 'competitive tendering'. In public works construction before we got to 'best value' assessments, you would have typically six firms tender for the work based on drawings and a bill of quantities, so all on the same basis, and five firms didn't think it could be done for the price quoted by the 'winner'. Unsurprising then that there would be 'issues' about errors, omissions, delays, 'extras', ... because it wasn't possible to 'trust'. We're getting what we voted for. Free lunch anyone?
You also have to make sure that any risks outside your own control are recorded as assumptions that the client has to "own", so if they turn out not to be true you don't get it in the neck for something not your fault. If you have to take on a big risk you can't control, you structure your company so it goes bankrupt if it arises (which DfT has tried to stop by imposing penalties and guarantees) or whack in a price premium to cover it (not good value for the public procurer).
Two trains have always stabled overnight at Crewe, this hasn't changed. The crew taxi in and out from Derby/Nottingham.
