HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 9, 9:39*pm, Mizter T wrote:

I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
such a development - and I don't think the country (in the form of
taxpayers) is willing to pay for it either (at least not again!),
especially if the end result is basically subsidising the lifestyle
choices of the more affluent! Those commuters in and around Ashford
and on the route of SE HS services have got something of a bargain...
especially as their house prices will likely go up as well (as it will
for non-commuters too).

£5 billion can buy a lot of light rail systems, improvements in
suburban rail services and bus services, cycle and walking route
improvements and other more general improvements to towns and cities
that boost the quality of life for all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Totally agree.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.

So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?

Obviously that won't happen,

Because it's regulated, and not a free market.

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete with
all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be some
messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 17/07/2009 at 14:41:06 Recliner (%mail)wrote: in
uk.railway

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message
,
at 05:59:59 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, MIG
remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best
interests. The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike
Regulation, which is Evil.

So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?

Obviously that won't happen, but I wonder what the exact mechanism
for the transfer will be? Will the new DfT ECML operating company
simply take over NXEC, complete with all its staff, leases, assets,
contracts, etc, or will there be some messy transfer of all of these
to the new company?

As I understand it, the actual service is called "InterCity East Coast"
and it's currently /operated/ by NXEC. When/if the DfT's pet company
takes over, it will still be "InterCity East Coast".

--

Richard Hunt

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
contract before NX won the new franchise. This case is more like Connex
SE, but even there, the situation was different (ie, they were sacked).
I think the NXEC case is a first, where the SPV will be left by its
owner to just run out of cash. Maybe it'll be put into administration,
with the DfT swiftly taking it over?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

" Richard Hunt" wrote in message

On 17/07/2009 at 14:41:06 Recliner (%mail)wrote: in
uk.railway

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message
,
at 05:59:59 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, MIG
remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best
interests. The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike
Regulation, which is Evil.

So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?

Obviously that won't happen, but I wonder what the exact mechanism
for the transfer will be? Will the new DfT ECML operating company
simply take over NXEC, complete with all its staff, leases, assets,
contracts, etc, or will there be some messy transfer of all of these
to the new company?

As I understand it, the actual service is called "InterCity East
Coast" and it's currently /operated/ by NXEC. When/if the DfT's pet
company takes over, it will still be "InterCity East Coast".

But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC, as I
presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine Holt's new
outfit?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 15:14:11 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
contract before NX won the new franchise.

So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a while?
Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready to go.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , Basil Jet
writes

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six months
rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical certificate
supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have the
appropriate and current insurance for public hire.
--
Paul Terry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 17, 4:46*pm, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Basil Jet
writes

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six months
rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical certificate
supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have the
appropriate and current insurance for public hire.

The six-monthly vehicle check has been scrapped by Boris, and it's now
back to a year.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Tim Fenton wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.

Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from ending
or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he actually provides
a service to the customer or the city. For instance a minicab office which
tells a tourist that such and such is miles away when it's really around the
corner, and then charges the tourist a fortune for a circuitous ride, would
be in no danger of losing its "PCO approved" status.

And they have to have The Knowledge ...

Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even a map.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 17, 4:59*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 17, 4:46*pm, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Basil Jet
writes

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six months
rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical certificate
supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have the
appropriate and current insurance for public hire.

The six-monthly vehicle check has been scrapped by Boris, and it's now
back to a year.

Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
six-monthly check referred to.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message
,
Mizter T writes

Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
six-monthly check referred to.

Are private hire vehicles now on a 12-monthly check? It was 6-monthly
when a friend had his Merc relicensed in April.

--
Paul Terry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:46:41 +0100, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London
taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve
the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which
approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being
permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one.


The turning circle requirement does not alone double the cost of the
vehicle. An objective comparison could be made between the costs of
the EcoCity Vehicles London Cab based on a Mercedes Vito, and a
similarly specified vehicle that lacks only the modification to the
standard steering system to give a smaller turning circle.

Obviously, these figures are not readily available, but I find it
difficult to believe that a single, albeit fairly complex modification
would actually double the cost of the EcoCity vehicle.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:19:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC, as I
presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine Holt's new
outfit?


The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:46:52 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:
In message , Basil Jet
writes

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six months
rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical certificate
supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have the
appropriate and current insurance for public hire.


There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.
The reason for the move was the exceptionally high cost of complying
with Aylesbury's requirements.

Apparently, the annual cost of complying with the requirements in
Middlesex (I cannot recall which Borough) is much less than half that
in Aylesbury.

Whether the enhanced requirements of one local authority over another
are intended serve the interest of the public rather than enhance the
accounts of the council's finance department is moot.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 17, 7:22*pm, Paul Terry wrote:

In message
,
Mizter T writes

Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
six-monthly check referred to.

Are private hire vehicles now on a 12-monthly check? It was 6-monthly
when a friend had his Merc relicensed in April.

I've no idea, sorry! I may try and find out though, now you've piqued
my interest in such matters.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:19:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC,
as I presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine
Holt's new outfit?


The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

Doesn't TUPE only cover the staff transfer?

Paul

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 15:14:11
on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a
management contract before NX won the new franchise.

So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a
while? Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready
to go.

Apparently Elaine Holt, recent FCC MD, is lined up to head up the DfT
InterCity East Coast company.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:46:52 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:
In message , Basil Jet
writes

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to
serve the interest of the public rather than the interest of the
minicab drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to
have been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have
the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.

There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.
The reason for the move was the exceptionally high cost of complying
with Aylesbury's requirements.

Apparently, the annual cost of complying with the requirements in
Middlesex (I cannot recall which Borough) is much less than half that
in Aylesbury.

Middlesex? They never licensed anything and were subsumed in Greater
London in 1965. But Aylesbury will vary rather less with everywhere else
but London than it does with London.

Whether the enhanced requirements of one local authority over another
are intended serve the interest of the public rather than enhance the
accounts of the council's finance department is moot.

The latter is ******** because councils are only allowed to cover their
licensing costs by charging. They are not allowed to make a profit on the
process

London has been the centre of the dodgy minicab industry for over 30
years. Everywhere else in England hire cars have been licensed in similar
manner to taxis since 1976.

When the Government finally decided that London should catch up with the
rest of the country they did a typically half-hearted job.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

MIG wrote:
On 17 July, 12:46, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:54 pm, "Charles Lindsey" wrote:
In Roland Perry
writes:
Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport?
Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate
transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney
Carriage").
Erm, back in the day in the London of pre-minicab regulation that was
nonetheless a very common occurrence (much to the ire of black cab aka
Hackney Carriage drivers), and it's hardly unknown today either.
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London
taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve
the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which
approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being
permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one.

Certain minicab companies march short distance passengers to the nearest
taxi rank in the knowledge that the taxis are legally compelled to take
these money-losing rides. By increasing the proportion of money-losing rides
picked up at that rank, they deter taxis from using that rank in future,
ultimately bankrupting and emptying the taxi rank. This allows the minicab
company to then take back those short rides but charge much more than the
taxis used to charge, GBP20 now being the minimum fare for some minicab
companies at night - if the passenger can fit in a car, that is, those
wheelchair users can all go to hell once the taxis are gone. The minicab
ethos is about as far from the public transport ethos as you can get.

Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.

Megali esti i Artemis ton Ephesion. Yes, I know you were joking: I
couldn't resist parading my learning.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.

So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?

Obviously that won't happen,

Because it's regulated, and not a free market.

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

Until the next company screwed up too. Say what you like about
Stalin...........

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Basil Jet wrote:
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.

Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from ending
or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he actually provides
a service to the customer or the city. For instance a minicab office which
tells a tourist that such and such is miles away when it's really around the
corner, and then charges the tourist a fortune for a circuitous ride, would
be in no danger of losing its "PCO approved" status.

And they have to have The Knowledge ...

Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even a map.


A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me the
way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I doubt
whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the same.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 07:17:38 on Sat, 18
Jul 2009, Martin Edwards remarked:
but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?
It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

Until the next company screwed up too.

No, operationally it's all gone fine so far, even with the several
changes of "operator".
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 20:43:56 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Bruce remarked:
But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC, as I
presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine Holt's new
outfit?

The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

Tony,

TUPE doesn't apply to ROSCOs, websites and office leases :)
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 20:52:15 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Tony Polson remarked:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs.

Quite marked differences between Cambridge City and South Cambs, aiui.
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 17, 3:19*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:14:11 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? *Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
contract before NX won the new franchise.

So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a while?
Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready to go.

No. I think that's the whole point - NXEC seemingly offered to do just
that (i.e. run teh service under a management contract), and it
appears likely that that was the quid-pro-quo in return for NXEC's
offer of a £100 million payment to the DfT to settle things and
terminate the franchise 'cleanly'. But Adonis wasn't having that, of
course.

The very fact that NXEC signalled its intention to default to the DfT
(unless trading conditions radically improve) has meant that the DfT
can prepare specific arrangements for an 'operator-in-waiting' (led by
Elaine Holt), ready to take over ICEC services when NXEC eventually
goes kaput after its long and drawn out death. The fact that whilst
this is going on, NXEC are meanwhile coming out with proclamations
implying that everything is hunky dory is simply utterly disingenuous
of them.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 17, 8:52*pm, Bruce wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

Time traveller, is he?

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:21:49 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.
Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from
ending or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he
actually provides a service to the customer or the city. For instance a
minicab office which tells a tourist that such and such is miles away
when it's really around the corner, and then charges the tourist a
fortune for a circuitous ride, would be in no danger of losing its "PCO
approved" status.

And they have to have The Knowledge ...
Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even a
map.

A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me the
way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I doubt
whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the same.

His actions may not have been born out of kindness, Martin. 'Black Cab'
drivers are not allowed to decline fares (within certain maximums.) They
are, understandably, reluctant to accept a short journey if, for example,
they have just spent a long time waiting to get to the front of a long
taxi rank. I bet it would have been a different story if you had hailed
him on the street.

--
Fig

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:48:48 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:19:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC,
as I presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine
Holt's new outfit?


The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

Doesn't TUPE only cover the staff transfer?


Yes, I should have pointed that out. I just wanted to make the point
that TUPE is a well-tried system for transferring people from one
organisation to another doing the same job.

In the event of TOC default, the ROSCO leases automatically revert to
DfT Rail - that's how the DfT guarantee works.

The Web site and office leases remain the responsibility of the TOC
unless separate arrangements are made for transfer. I would expect
those arrangements will be under negotiation and will be in place for
when NXEC walks away, assuming that is still their intention.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:53:10 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On Jul 17, 3:19*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:14:11 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? *Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
contract before NX won the new franchise.

So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a while?
Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready to go.

No. I think that's the whole point - NXEC seemingly offered to do just
that (i.e. run teh service under a management contract), and it
appears likely that that was the quid-pro-quo in return for NXEC's
offer of a £100 million payment to the DfT to settle things and
terminate the franchise 'cleanly'. But Adonis wasn't having that, of
course.

The very fact that NXEC signalled its intention to default to the DfT
(unless trading conditions radically improve) has meant that the DfT
can prepare specific arrangements for an 'operator-in-waiting' (led by
Elaine Holt), ready to take over ICEC services when NXEC eventually
goes kaput after its long and drawn out death. The fact that whilst
this is going on, NXEC are meanwhile coming out with proclamations
implying that everything is hunky dory is simply utterly disingenuous
of them.


I wonder whether the negotiated settlement that included the payment
of £100 million from NXEC would not have been the best (or, more
accurately, least worst) option for all concerned. Especially given
that NXEC had negotiated the deal with the Department in good faith,
and it only needed both sides to sign up.

Adonis seems to have gone out on a limb here. His officials had done
everything to secure what they considered a good deal for the
taxpayer, and certainly not behind the unelected Baron's back, but he
decided to renege on the deal - or rather not implement it.

It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for the unelected
Baron's conduct; first, that he wanted to discourage other TOCs from
trying to negotiate similar deals, to the detriment of the franchising
system as a whole, and second, that he wanted to at least threaten NX
very publicly with the loss of their other two franchises, to show
that he was being tough. But what's the point?

The whole system of franchising is so widely and deeply discredited,
and it would be a very good thing for the country if it was replaced
with a much simpler and more integrated system. However, that isn't
going to happen under Labour, so I think Adonis should instead have
taken a more pragmatic approach and found ways to make the system work
less badly.

The already agreed deal with NXEC, negotiated with his full knowledge
and approval up to the point he decided not to sign, should have gone
ahead. The Department should then have been slightly more receptive
to deals with those other TOCs who are in trouble because of the
severity of the recession, even to the point of seeing several of them
switch to GNER-style management contracts.

This sorry saga calls into question the ability of the unelected Baron
to do his job. Decisions of this magnitude need rather more careful
consideration than he seems capable of giving.

His track record isn't great, either. When the buzz of publicity that
surrounded the launch of the government's City Academy scheme died
down, and the actual performance of the Academies was evaluated, it
became clear that rather than being a solution to a problem, they
simply created their own new problems while solving nothing at all.

The form of contracts used to create the Academies was demonstrably
not fit for purpose, and will cause massive long term problems that
are not so dissimilar to those caused by the equally unfit rail
franchise agreements and the appalling PFI deals in the NHS.

It all points to someone who has some good ideas, even flashes of
brilliance, but is possibly not someone who can be relied on to make
the right medium- and long-term decisions.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:17:38 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.

So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?

Obviously that won't happen,

Because it's regulated, and not a free market.

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

Until the next company screwed up too. Say what you like about
Stalin...........



Are you sure you didn't mean Mussolini?

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

Martin Edwards wrote:

A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me
the way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I
doubt whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the
same.

If he was on the front of a rank which he had taken some time to progress
through, then encouraging you to walk was self-interest rather than
altruism.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

John B wrote:

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...0.3 2,,2,0.55

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5. 18,,2,0.28

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 18, 3:05*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
John B wrote:

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...7,-0.148702&sp...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5,-0.138509&sp...

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.

Seems unlikely: councils aren't normally allowed to put up signs
conveying false information.

I imagine there are still signs in parts of Slovenia suggesting that
it's in Yugoslavia; I'm equally sure that these don't mean Yugoslavia
exists.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
20:52:15 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Tony Polson remarked:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs.

Quite marked differences between Cambridge City and South Cambs,
aiui.

Rather less than you might think.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On 18 July, 18:55, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:11 +0100 someone who may be "Basil Jet"
wrote this:-

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

There is still a cricket club with that name, a university and the
post office know where it is.

This where someone usually pops up saying that the current boundaries
are just "administrative boundaries", implying that past
administrative boundaries somehow delimit real places in a different
way.

They are all administrative boundaries. I tend to think that current
boundaries and authorities are the only ones worth worrying about,
because they are current.

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

John B wrote:
On Jul 18, 3:05 pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
John B wrote:

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)
Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...7,-0.148702&sp...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5,-0.138509&sp...

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.

Seems unlikely: councils aren't normally allowed to put up signs
conveying false information.

Lots of places have signs but no distinct government. I think I've seen
"England" on signs, and even "London" is rather complex concept to pin
down as a specific "thing".

The late and unlamented Humbers*de put up signs saying "England's newest
county", but presumably the unloved concept was no different in age to
Avon etc.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

In message , at 12:46:04
on Sat, 18 Jul 2009, remarked:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs.

Quite marked differences between Cambridge City and South Cambs,
aiui.

Rather less than you might think.

I'm going by what people say in cam.transport. Perhaps you think they
are exaggerating?
--
Roland Perry

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 18, 8:55*am, John B wrote:

On Jul 17, 8:52*pm, Bruce wrote:

There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

Time traveller, is he?

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Do you have *any* idea about the can of worms that you seem intent on
opening?! (I half suspect you do, actually...)

HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
 

On Jul 18, 5:47*pm, John B wrote:

On Jul 18, 3:05*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

John B wrote:

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

Middlesex exists, it just isn't recognised by the national government.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...7,-0.148702&sp...

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...5,-0.138509&sp...

I understand that these signs were put up by Enfield Council less than 15
years ago. I'm not aware of any others.

Seems unlikely: councils aren't normally allowed to put up signs
conveying false information.

I've been up close and personal with one such sign - I honestly don't
know the veracity of that story (which I've heard before, but perhaps
it was here!), but the signs themselves certainly seem in pretty good
nick if they really are *that* old. I took photos too, however I've no
idea where they are but I'll try and find them.

(I actually had various thoughts about them being maintained
particularly well by the Borough roads people, and one though that's
just come to me is that perhaps they replaced old signs like for like
with other old but unused ones inherited from the stores of Middlesex
CC.)


I imagine there are still signs in parts of Slovenia suggesting that
it's in Yugoslavia; I'm equally sure that these don't mean Yugoslavia
exists.

To an extent, Middlesex exists as a place in the sense that people
think it exists - in that sense it's much like any other place name.
There's all those many things named after Middlesex of course -
there's Middlesex County Cricket Club for example, and there's also
North Middlesex and West Middlesex hospitals (and there was (Central)
Middlesex Hospital, now merged with UCH). Middlesex also continued to
exist as a postal county up until the Royal Mail abandoned the notion
of postal counties, so properly addressed letters included Middlesex
on the last line (this issue is somewhat complicated as a good chunk
of metropolitan Middlesex was already in the London postal district).