Today's "Evening Standard" carries an article celebrating
the service out of Kings Cross. The writer maintains that
competition among train operating companies provides
passengers with better services than are available from
stations such as Paddington where there is less real competition.

The July issue of "Modern Railways" takes the opposite view.
"Bob Poynter argues that adding more services to an already
crowded route is a recipe for disaster" for the ECML. Both articles
were quite persuasive but can they both be correct?

Opinions please.

In message , at 20:17:22 on Wed, 13
Jul 2016, Robin9 remarked:
Today's "Evening Standard" carries an article celebrating
the service out of Kings Cross. The writer maintains that
competition among train operating companies provides
passengers with better services than are available from
stations such as Paddington where there is less real competition.

The July issue of "Modern Railways" takes the opposite view.
"Bob Poynter argues that adding more services to an already
crowded route is a recipe for disaster" for the ECML. Both articles
were quite persuasive but can they both be correct?

It's a false dichotomy. While the number of trains per hour/day should
be limited to the physical capacity of the line, with some contingency
for operating incidents, whether they are all operated by one, or
multiple, companies is an entirely different question.
--
Roland Perry

Mr. Poynter's argument is that open access competition
has lead to over-provision between KX and Edinburgh
while towns such as Lincoln are neglected.

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Roland Perry;156771 Wrote:
In message , at 20:17:22 on Wed, 13
Jul 2016, Robin9 remarked:-
Today's "Evening Standard" carries an article celebrating
the service out of Kings Cross. The writer maintains that
competition among train operating companies provides
passengers with better services than are available from
stations such as Paddington where there is less real competition.

The July issue of "Modern Railways" takes the opposite view.
"Bob Poynter argues that adding more services to an already
crowded route is a recipe for disaster" for the ECML. Both articles
were quite persuasive but can they both be correct?-

It's a false dichotomy. While the number of trains per hour/day should
be limited to the physical capacity of the line, with some contingency
for operating incidents, whether they are all operated by one, or
multiple, companies is an entirely different question.
--
Roland Perry

Mr. Poynter's argument is that open access competition
has lead to over-provision between KX and Edinburgh
while towns such as Lincoln are neglected.

Odd you suggested that location as last week I got on an EMT train with a
final destination of Lincoln, taking 3 and a half hours

and I thought "why would anyone come this way" (availability of ultra-cheap
fares excepted)

TIM

In message , at 17:44:37 on Thu, 14
Jul 2016, Robin9 remarked:
Today's "Evening Standard" carries an article celebrating
the service out of Kings Cross. The writer maintains that
competition among train operating companies provides
passengers with better services than are available from
stations such as Paddington where there is less real competition.

The July issue of "Modern Railways" takes the opposite view.
"Bob Poynter argues that adding more services to an already
crowded route is a recipe for disaster" for the ECML. Both articles
were quite persuasive but can they both be correct?-

It's a false dichotomy. While the number of trains per hour/day should
be limited to the physical capacity of the line, with some contingency
for operating incidents, whether they are all operated by one, or
multiple, companies is an entirely different question.

Mr. Poynter's argument is that open access competition
has lead to over-provision between KX and Edinburgh
while towns such as Lincoln are neglected.

They were also neglected when it was just GNER operating the line.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:09:03 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
Mr. Poynter's argument is that open access competition
has lead to over-provision between KX and Edinburgh
while towns such as Lincoln are neglected.

Odd you suggested that location as last week I got on an EMT train with
a final destination of Lincoln, taking 3 and a half hours

and I thought "why would anyone come this way" (availability of
ultra-cheap fares excepted)

No-one does, but it ticked a box in the Lincoln[shire?] Council who had
some kind of election promise to lobby for a direct train to London.

What they did was take an existing Lincoln-Nottingham service and
persuade EMT to use a 5-car Meridian rather than a Sprinter, joining
with a second existing Meridian service (Nottingham-StPancras).

Many lessons here about Brexit promises being delivered in word, but not
in spirit. Like "gaining control of our borders" (which we already had,
in the sense that it's our order Agency which checks the paperwork)
while continuing to implement the EU's freedom of movement policy.
--
Roland Perry