Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, TP
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>>
>> It isn't a moot point; it is very simple. Those trains are off
>> lease, and to put then back on lease would cost a lot more than any
>> additional revenue they would generate.
>
> That is the *stupidest* excuse of all. If the trains are there,
> standing idle, and the passengers are there needing the service they
> can provide, and the management system is so baroque that they can't
> be deployed, then it's time to sack the managers.
>
> Just renationalise the lot and let's get back to a railway system
> which actually works, rather than the present crazy beurocratic
> morass.
Which managers would you sack? It's the Government that made the rules,
it's the government that "sold" (gave away more like) the stock to the
leasing companies and it's the government that set the rules requiring
that stock off lease loses it's certification to run and therefore it's
safety case. I cannot lease a unit for one day. I can get short term
leases of 3 months or so. With certification costs, (engineering
acceptance, design acceptance, construction acceptance and VMOI)
possibly a tad under £30,000 for a single 4 car mk1 emu. How many such
vehicles would be needed? Who would you like to pay for it? I can no
more run an uncertificated train than I can an unregistered bus or carry
passengers in an aircraft without Cof A.
Renationalise the lot? That will solve everything of course. Maybe
someone should write to Alistair Darling and suggest it.
In the meantime ready for next year, I would urge the organisers of this
cycle ride to contact Southern and suggest that an approach be made to
Wessex/Fragonset/EWS and get estimates for the provision of a train or
two capable of carrying cyclists. In a similar way to Wessex today
providing two rakes of loco hauled stock with 31s between Swindon and
Castle Cary for Glastonbury, (and FGW with two 47s and LHCS) such
flexibility may be a better solution than trying to cram onto modern emu
stock.
