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.

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.

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.

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?
--
Roland Perry

On 17 July, 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
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?

That's an excellent example of the Good that the Market has to offer
to Customers. Other examples welcome.

"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?

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

"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?

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...........

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