On Thu, 7 May 2026 13:08:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6puovktk4d09ddpgls2rklfr7ebhs31j2f@4ax.com>, at 12:55:04 on >>Thu, 7 May 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 12:35:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
...and hello TSGNL (Thameslink Southern Great Northern Limited).
A bit of a mouthful, compared to GBR.
It'll be interesting to see how many of GTR's top executives (Angie >>>Doll, John Whitehurst, Louis Rambaud, Ruth Busby, Myriam Walburger, >>>Samantha Facey, John Gerrard) stay with the company. Perhaps they all >>>will, given that there are unlikely to be many roles for them in other >>>Go-Ahead Group or Keolis companies? Only Louis Rambaud had a previous >>>bus career, and transferred to GTR from Go-Ahead. The other execs all >>>had a rail background, and will presumably prefer to stay in the rail >>>industry.
https://gtrailway.com/team/#executive-team
The email I got says "the same teams" will be running the services, >>processing user data, etc. They are silent about the senior managers.
Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the operational company will remain unchanged apart from the
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
Incidentally, although DfTO is a public sector operation, the staff are technically not civil servants.
I was talking to--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
one recently, who had transferred from the DfT, and they apparently have a five-year deal which allows them to return to
the civil service if they want a civil service career, rather than in the rail industry.
Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
operational company will remain unchanged apart from the
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will
remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
operational company will remain unchanged apart from the
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will
remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
ThererCOs also the risk of adding another layer of management.
With the integration of NR Routes and DfTO TOCs, there wonrCOt be any centralisation. But that might come later, when the GBR organisation is created.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Quite. Often the result is a bureaucratic empire with a wage bill higher
than what was replaced. DoesnrCOt just happen in the public sector either.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:What will happen, which I observe endlessly in most organisations, is that there will be a reorganisation of the structure. Then a few years down the line when things arenrCOt working well enough there will be another restructure, then rinse and repeat. There seems to be an endless hope in
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
ThererCOs also the risk of adding another layer of management.
With the integration of NR Routes and DfTO TOCs, there wonrCOt be any
centralisation. But that might come later, when the GBR organisation is
created.
both business and public service that if only we organised differently all the problems will go away. They rarely do.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Quite. Often the result is a bureaucratic empire with a wage bill higher
than what was replaced. DoesnrCOt just happen in the public sector either.
ItrCOs not for nothing that thererCOs the concept of rCLright sizingrCY.
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:55:13 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:ItrCOs not for nothing that thererCOs the concept of rCLright sizingrCY.
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Quite. Often the result is a bureaucratic empire with a wage bill higher >>> than what was replaced. DoesnrCOt just happen in the public sector either. >>
That's much harder to implement in the heavily unionised public sector.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:55:13 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson1300 staff are being made redundant in the NHS England regional offices.
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Quite. Often the result is a bureaucratic empire with a wage bill higher >>>> than what was replaced. DoesnrCOt just happen in the public sector either.
ItrCOs not for nothing that thererCOs the concept of rCLright sizingrCY.
That's much harder to implement in the heavily unionised public sector.
Being a union member in the public sector is not necessarily a protection >against losing your job.
On Fri, 8 May 2026 12:22:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:55:13 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson1300 staff are being made redundant in the NHS England regional offices.
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:That's much harder to implement in the heavily unionised public sector.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of >>>>>>> duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>> by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces >>>>>> its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Quite. Often the result is a bureaucratic empire with a wage bill higher >>>>> than what was replaced. DoesnrCOt just happen in the public sector either.
ItrCOs not for nothing that thererCOs the concept of rCLright sizingrCY. >>>
Are they actually being made redundant or just moved to some other part
of the NHS or the ministry?
Being a union member in the public sector is not necessarily a protection
against losing your job.
It's a lot more protection than private sector workers have.
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:55:13 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:ItrCOs not for nothing that thererCOs the concept of rCLright sizingrCY.
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Quite. Often the result is a bureaucratic empire with a wage bill higher >>> than what was replaced. DoesnrCOt just happen in the public sector either. >>
That's much harder to implement in the heavily unionised public sector.
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the operational company will remain unchanged apart from the
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will remain. My guess is that they probably will, butPresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation.
If anything, over-centralising things introduces
its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 12:22:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 09:55:13 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson1300 staff are being made redundant in the NHS England regional offices.
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the >>>>>>>>> operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of >>>>>>>> duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will
remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>>> by consolidation. If anything, over-centralising things introduces >>>>>>> its own kind of inefficiencies. And 'local knowledge' isn't
something which can be easily centralised.
Quite. Often the result is a bureaucratic empire with a wage bill higher >>>>>> than what was replaced. DoesnAt just happen in the public sector either.
ItAs not for nothing that thereAs the concept of oright sizingo.
That's much harder to implement in the heavily unionised public sector. >>>>
Are they actually being made redundant or just moved to some other part
of the NHS or the ministry?
Being a union member in the public sector is not necessarily a protection >>> against losing your job.
It's a lot more protection than private sector workers have.
Being made redundant. ThereAs a lot of compulsory redundancies across the >university sector at the moment as well. Union protection against job
losses is only as good as the ability to strike and the employer to give in >first.
ThereAs not so many industries, even in the public sector, where--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
that is still the case. Take the Birmingham bin strike as an example.
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 onAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, theAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with reduced need for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps, delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they can combine them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised versions of such systems.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, theAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced: >>
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational
responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three
separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time >> theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The
marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with reduced need >> for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps,
delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they can combine >> them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised versions of such >> systems.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
[snip]
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. rCa
Recliner wrote:Fnarr ...
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. rCa
But I bet there are 2 D2s.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reducedAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced: >>
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational
responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three
separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time >> theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs.
The marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with
reduced need for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web
sites, apps, delay-repay functions and ticket sales.
should provide centralised versions of such systems.At the very least, they can combine them in the short term, but GBR
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, theAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced
by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced: >>>
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational
responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three
separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time >>> theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The
marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with reduced need >>> for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps,
delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they can combine >>> them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised versions of such >>> systems.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially fixed, the >best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public sector >organisations think.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked: >>>>>>>> Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, theAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of >>>>>>> duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will >>>>>>>> remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>> by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time >>>> theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The >>>> marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with reduced need >>>> for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps,
delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they can combine
them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised versions of such
systems.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially fixed, the >> best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public sector >> organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 MayDonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are their pricing elastic band?
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR coalesces is >>> to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially fixed, the >>> best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public sector >>> organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 MayDonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially
fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public
sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
their
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the
train another chance.
In message <10tpou7$arcv$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:51 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reducedAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced: >>>
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational
responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three
separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time >>> theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs.
What makes you think they have three full-time ones at the moment?
The marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with
reduced need for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web
sites, apps, delay-repay functions and ticket sales.
The cost of those is down in the noise level, and could well be combined already; the ITSO card for GTR is the old Southern one, and covers all
the franchises, for example.
As far as I could tell, back in the day First combined all the
Delay-Repay and customer service enquiries for every franchise they
held, at one office.
should provide centralised versions of such systems.At the very least, they can combine them in the short term, but GBR
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
And quite a lot of travel doing site visits/inspections across the whole country, rather than just locally.
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 MayDonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>> their
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially
fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment,
decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce
affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the
train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially
fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the
train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet!
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet!
Whoever's advertising it, it may be marketing speak for keeping the high fares no one actually pays unchanged whilst withdrawing more popular
lower ones. It's as if the DFS sale had actually ended.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>>>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go >>>>>>> elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>>>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>>>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet!
Whoever's advertising it, it may be marketing speak for keeping the high
fares no one actually pays unchanged whilst withdrawing more popular
lower ones. It's as if the DFS sale had actually ended.
Perhaps DfTO instructed LNER to do the experiment, on behalf of the DfT?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tpou7$arcv$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:51 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>> by consolidation.Agreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time >>>> theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs.
What makes you think they have three full-time ones at the moment?
The marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with
reduced need for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web
sites, apps, delay-repay functions and ticket sales.
The cost of those is down in the noise level, and could well be combined
already; the ITSO card for GTR is the old Southern one, and covers all
the franchises, for example.
As far as I could tell, back in the day First combined all the
Delay-Repay and customer service enquiries for every franchise they
held, at one office.
should provide centralised versions of such systems.At the very least, they can combine them in the short term, but GBR
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
And quite a lot of travel doing site visits/inspections across the whole
country, rather than just locally.
As already mentioned in many threads, GBR will be regionally devolved.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially
fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the
train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet!
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet!
That is what is says in the adverts, so perhaps you should tell them
they don't exist as they obviously think they do.
On 10/05/2026 21:57, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tpou7$arcv$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:51 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>>> by consolidation.Agreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual >>>>> integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time
theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs.
What makes you think they have three full-time ones at the moment?
The marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with
reduced need for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web
sites, apps, delay-repay functions and ticket sales.
The cost of those is down in the noise level, and could well be combined >>> already; the ITSO card for GTR is the old Southern one, and covers all
the franchises, for example.
As far as I could tell, back in the day First combined all the
Delay-Repay and customer service enquiries for every franchise they
held, at one office.
should provide centralised versions of such systems.At the very least, they can combine them in the short term, but GBR
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
And quite a lot of travel doing site visits/inspections across the whole >>> country, rather than just locally.
As already mentioned in many threads, GBR will be regionally devolved.
At least this week, until the DfT change their mind.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>>>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go >>>>>>> elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>>>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>>>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet! >>>
That is what is says in the adverts, so perhaps you should tell them
they don't exist as they obviously think they do.
Who is rCytheyrCO? GBR simply doesnrCOt exist yet.
On 11/05/2026 10:16, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>>>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR >>>>>>>>> coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go >>>>>>>> elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>>>>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>>>>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet! >>>>
That is what is says in the adverts, so perhaps you should tell them
they don't exist as they obviously think they do.
Who is rCytheyrCO? GBR simply doesnrCOt exist yet.
Well they are running TV adverts so someone thinks they exist.
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers,
and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some
of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 MayDonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are their >pricing elastic band?
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 on >>>>>>> Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:Agreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the >>>>>>>>> operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of >>>>>>>> duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation.
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will
remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>>> by consolidation.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be >>>>>reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual >>>>> integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time
theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The >>>>> marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with reduced need
for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps,
delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they
can combine
them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised
versions of such
systems.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR coalesces is >>> to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially fixed, the >>> best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public sector >>> organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet! >>>That is what is says in the adverts, so perhaps you should tell them
they don't exist as they obviously think they do.
Who is rCytheyrCO? GBR simply doesnrCOt exist yet.
Well they are running TV adverts so someone thinks they exist.
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers,
and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some
of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
In message <10tsr75$16n3u$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:05:09 on Mon, 11 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet! >>>>That is what is says in the adverts, so perhaps you should tell them
they don't exist as they obviously think they do.
Who is rCytheyrCO? GBR simply doesnrCOt exist yet.
Well they are running TV adverts so someone thinks they exist.
All over the news today is the announcement that GBR's first station
opening is Cambridge South on 28th June. Even though we know GBR doesn't really exist yet, and other nationalised lines have had new stations
opening recently.
I've got a side-bet that the first train that Sunday will be bustituted, which is what happened to FCC when they took over the WAGN franchise.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers,
and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some
of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the
cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and >regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too >extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only >have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility. Now airline >style pricing is fine for airlines, they are private enterprises, and for >most people flexibility isnrCOt really a requirement when flying. But >railways receive significant public funding and I believe part of that
should be a more consumer friendly fare structure.
In message <10tsv26$1830d$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:46 on Mon, 11 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, >>>>> and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some >>>>> of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the
cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and
regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too
extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only
have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility. Now airline >> style pricing is fine for airlines, they are private enterprises, and for
most people flexibility isnrCOt really a requirement when flying. But
railways receive significant public funding and I believe part of that
should be a more consumer friendly fare structure.
One of things I see "calls for"[tm] is operator agnostic fares (or we'd probably call them interavailable).
For example Gatwick Express to be the same price as Thameslink (also
given they are operated by the same TOC). Although the difference is
small.
Contrast with Kings Cross to Peterborough, lots of comparisons to choose from, but try this one:
Flexi Season, Any Permitted: 8 days for -u781.50
GTR Only: 8 days for -u546.70
To equalise them, do you raise one, lower the other, or "meet in the middle"[tm].
In message <10tqn6r$kcap$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:44:27 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 MayDonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are their
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR coalesces is >>>> to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially fixed, the
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 onAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>>>> by consolidation.Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the >>>>>>>>>> operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of >>>>>>>>> duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation. >>>>>>>>
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will
remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be >>>>>> reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual >>>>>> integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time
theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The >>>>>> marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with reduced need
for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps, >>>>>> delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they
can combine
them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised
versions of such
systems.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc. >>>>
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public sector >>>> organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
Advance fares have been available since before privatisation.
Elasticity of demand (to those of who have had professional training in
the concept) is much more subtle, and also takes into account leeching
by competitors. So a High Street might have a fairly captive audience of
100 people who want a haircut today, with two salons roughly taking half
the business each. If a third opens, it won't necessarily grow the
market (at any price) resulting in each getting a third of the business
in the medium term.
On 2026-05-11 8:42 a.m., Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10tqn6r$kcap$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:44:27 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 MayDonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>> their
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be >>>>>>> reduced:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>>>> 19:19:50 onAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total >>>>>>>> "traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before. >>>>>>>
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>>>>> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always beYes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the >>>>>>>>>>> operational company will remain unchanged apart from the >>>>>>>>>>> company name, but it's not certain that the whole management >>>>>>>>>>> team willPresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of >>>>>>>>>> duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation. >>>>>>>>>
remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
cost-reduced
by consolidation.
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a
virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross
organisational
responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially >>>>>>> three
separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 >>>>>>> years time
theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The >>>>>>> marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with
reduced need
for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps, >>>>>>> delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they
can combine
them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised
versions of such
systems.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc. >>>>>
coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially
fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if >>>> they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
Advance fares have been available since before privatisation.
Elasticity of demand (to those of who have had professional training in
the concept) is much more subtle, and also takes into account leeching
by competitors. So a High Street might have a fairly captive audience of
100 people who want a haircut today, with two salons roughly taking half
the business each. If a third opens, it won't necessarily grow the
market (at any price) resulting in each getting a third of the business
in the medium term.
I recall the sudden increase in barbershops in recent years elicited
comment on this group.-a In these parts, it seemingly coincided with the sudden arrival of large numbers of Kurds ('Erbil Barbers' do business in several locations) and Syrians.-a There are two side by side in an
obscure corner of suburban Vancouver, separated by a narrow alley.-a A
local one has six chairs but I've only occasionally seen two dudes on duty... and during the week the sole barber is usually outside smoking.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/05/2026 10:16, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonAt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>>>>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR >>>>>>>>>> coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatAs not how public >>>>>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go >>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
ItAs ironic that theyAre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most. >>>>>>>>>
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment,
decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce
affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>>>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnAt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnAt exist yet! >>>>>
That is what is says in the adverts, so perhaps you should tell them
they don't exist as they obviously think they do.
Who is atheyA? GBR simply doesnAt exist yet.
Well they are running TV adverts so someone thinks they exist.
Great British Railways Limited exists on Companies House, but the last set
of accounts filed claimed it to be dormant.
On Mon, 11 May 2026 15:18:02 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:It isn't necessary for a company to exist or be active for the brand
On 11/05/2026 10:16, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:Don-At they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR >>>>>>>>>>> coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but that-As not how public >>>>>>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go >>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
It-As ironic that they-Are driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most. >>>>>>>>>>
their
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment,
decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce
affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the
train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isn-At doing anything for the next year, as it doesn-At exist yet! >>>>>>
That is what is says in the adverts, so perhaps you should tell them >>>>> they don't exist as they obviously think they do.
Who is -athey-A? GBR simply doesn-At exist yet.
Well they are running TV adverts so someone thinks they exist.
Great British Railways Limited exists on Companies House, but the last set >> of accounts filed claimed it to be dormant.
to be used. It is required for someone to declare they are using a
brand if they do so on any paperwork or a website and they aren't the same-named entity. No website seems to exist yet.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:ThererCOs no fares freeze on Advance fares, as they can dream up almost any number they feel like for an Advance.
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Whoever's advertising it, it may be marketing speak for keeping the high >>> fares no one actually pays unchanged whilst withdrawing more popular
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are >>>>>>> their
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR >>>>>>>>> coalesces is
to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially >>>>>>>>> fixed, the
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public >>>>>>>>> sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go >>>>>>>> elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment, >>>>>> decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce >>>>>> affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet! >>>
lower ones. It's as if the DFS sale had actually ended.
Perhaps DfTO instructed LNER to do the experiment, on behalf of the DfT?
The powers that be think that the LNER system is a great success and they want to extend it to other long distance routes.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, >>>> and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some
of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the
cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, >>>>> and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some >>>>> of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the
cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and
regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too
extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only
have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility.
How would that work for gWr, for example, where many (possibly most?) of
the long-distance services also form the local service for part of the
route? See also XC which is sometimes the only service between certain places.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:ThererCOs no fares freeze on Advance fares, as they can dream up almost any >> number they feel like for an Advance.
On 10/05/2026 21:59, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Whoever's advertising it, it may be marketing speak for keeping the high >>>> fares no one actually pays unchanged whilst withdrawing more popular
On 10/05/2026 21:19, Certes wrote:
On 10/05/2026 20:44, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 May >>>>>>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:DonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are
Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR >>>>>>>>>>coalesces is to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs >>>>>>>>>> fixed, the best way to do this is to grow revenue, but >>>>>>>>>>thatrCOs not how public sector organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and >>>>>>>>>think if they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, >>>>>>>>>rather than go elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most. >>>>>>>>>
their
pricing elastic band?
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an experiment,
decide that it drives away too many potential customers, and reintroduce
affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some of them to give the >>>>>>> train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
GBR isnrCOt doing anything for the next year, as it doesnrCOt exist yet! >>>>
lower ones. It's as if the DFS sale had actually ended.
Perhaps DfTO instructed LNER to do the experiment, on behalf of the DfT? >>>
The powers that be think that the LNER system is a great success and they
want to extend it to other long distance routes.
The LNER system which seems to have reduced the availability of Advance
fares dramatically? Oh goody.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tsv26$1830d$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:46 on Mon, 11 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, >>>>>> and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some >>>>>> of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the >>>> cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and
regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too
extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only >>> have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility. Now airline >>> style pricing is fine for airlines, they are private enterprises, and for >>> most people flexibility isnrCOt really a requirement when flying. But
railways receive significant public funding and I believe part of that
should be a more consumer friendly fare structure.
One of things I see "calls for"[tm] is operator agnostic fares (or we'd
probably call them interavailable).
For example Gatwick Express to be the same price as Thameslink (also
given they are operated by the same TOC). Although the difference is
small.
Contrast with Kings Cross to Peterborough, lots of comparisons to choose
from, but try this one:
Flexi Season, Any Permitted: 8 days for -u781.50
GTR Only: 8 days for -u546.70
To equalise them, do you raise one, lower the other, or "meet in the
middle"[tm].
I think itrCOs long established, not just in the UK, that fast, >limited/non-stop expresses have more expensive tickets than slower, less >comfortable, stopping regional trains.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, >>>>> and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some >>>>> of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the
cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and
regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too
extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only
have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility.
How would that work for gWr, for example, where many (possibly most?) of
the long-distance services also form the local service for part of the
route? See also XC which is sometimes the only service between certain >places.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tpou7$arcv$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:51 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>> by consolidation.Agreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual
integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time >>>> theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs.
What makes you think they have three full-time ones at the moment?
The marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with
reduced need for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web
sites, apps, delay-repay functions and ticket sales.
The cost of those is down in the noise level, and could well be combined
already; the ITSO card for GTR is the old Southern one, and covers all
the franchises, for example.
As far as I could tell, back in the day First combined all the
Delay-Repay and customer service enquiries for every franchise they
held, at one office.
should provide centralised versions of such systems.At the very least, they can combine them in the short term, but GBR
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
And quite a lot of travel doing site visits/inspections across the whole
country, rather than just locally.
As already mentioned in many threads, GBR will be regionally devolved.
Advance fares have been available since before privatisation.
Elasticity of demand (to those of who have had professional training
in the concept) is much more subtle, and also takes into account
leeching by competitors. So a High Street might have a fairly captive >>audience of 100 people who want a haircut today, with two salons
roughly taking half the business each. If a third opens, it won't >>necessarily grow the market (at any price) resulting in each getting
a third of the business in the medium term.
I recall the sudden increase in barbershops in recent years elicited
comment on this group. In these parts, it seemingly coincided with the >sudden arrival of large numbers of Kurds ('Erbil Barbers' do business
in several locations) and Syrians. There are two side by side in an
obscure corner of suburban Vancouver, separated by a narrow alley. A
local one has six chairs but I've only occasionally seen two dudes on >duty... and during the week the sole barber is usually outside smoking.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tsv26$1830d$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:46 on Mon, 11 May 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, >>>>> and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some >>>>> of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the >>> cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and
regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too
extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only >> have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility. Now airline
style pricing is fine for airlines, they are private enterprises, and for >> most people flexibility isnrCOt really a requirement when flying. But
railways receive significant public funding and I believe part of that
should be a more consumer friendly fare structure.
One of things I see "calls for"[tm] is operator agnostic fares (or we'd probably call them interavailable).
For example Gatwick Express to be the same price as Thameslink (also
given they are operated by the same TOC). Although the difference is
small.
Contrast with Kings Cross to Peterborough, lots of comparisons to choose from, but try this one:
Flexi Season, Any Permitted: 8 days for -u781.50
GTR Only: 8 days for -u546.70
To equalise them, do you raise one, lower the other, or "meet in the middle"[tm].
I think itrCOs long established, not just in the UK, that fast, limited/non-stop expresses have more expensive tickets than slower, less comfortable, stopping regional trains.
In message <10tqn6r$kcap$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:44:27 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <STZLR.236$uZ9.109@fx15.ams1>, at 11:22:26 on Sun, 10 MayDonrCOt they believe that the random number generated Advance fares are their
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:Apparently the strongest guidance coming from the DfT as GBR coalesces is >>> to drive down the subsidy. Given that many costs are essentially fixed, the
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2026 07:08:25 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <thlpvk1nur29v17k694rmgurqr48mmnn59@4ax.com>, at 19:19:50 onAgreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
Thu, 7 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>>> by consolidation.Yes, I got the same email a couple of days ago. Clearly, the >>>>>>>>> operational company will remain unchanged apart from thePresumably there will be consequent consolidation and removal of >>>>>>>> duplicated functions once there is only one main organisation. >>>>>>>
company name, but it's not certain that the whole management team will
remain. My guess is that they probably will, but
time will tell.
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be >>>>>reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual >>>>> integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time
theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs. The >>>>> marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with reduced need
for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web sites, apps, >>>>> delay-repay functions and ticket sales. At the very least, they >>>>>can combine
them in the short term, but GBR should provide centralised >>>>>versions of such
systems.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc. >>>
best way to do this is to grow revenue, but thatrCOs not how public sector
organisations think.
In particular, they don't understand elasticity of demand, and think if
they put prices up everyone will meekly pay extra, rather than go
elsewhere.
ItrCOs ironic that theyrCOre driving out the private
sector from the railway just as its skills are needed most.
pricing elastic band?
Advance fares have been available since before privatisation. BT called
them APEX. The objective being to put newly found bums on seats which
would otherwise be empty.
The current AP fares aren't quite the same (especially the way they are available even up to the day of travel, rather than only 14 days in
advance) and are said to be a series of quotas, the price going up one
notch every time one quota is sold out.
That's the "Only 2 seats left at this price" thing which is also
commonplace on low-cost airlines and the equivalent for many
non-walkup hotel bookings.
Elasticity of demand (to those of who have had professional training in
the concept) is much more subtle, and also takes into account leeching
by competitors. So a High Street might have a fairly captive audience of
100 people who want a haircut today, with two salons roughly taking half
the business each. If a third opens, it won't necessarily grow the
market (at any price)
In message <gKnMR.3$hI1.0@fx16.ams1>, at 16:47:08 on Mon, 11 May 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tsv26$1830d$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:46 on Mon, 11 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tqr7n$lkc8$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:53:11 on Sun, 10 May >>>>> 2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
I hope protoGBR will treat the east coast fare changes as an
experiment, decide that it drives away too many potential customers, >>>>>>> and reintroduce affordable flexible fares in time to encourage some >>>>>>> of them to give the train another chance.
GBR are currently advertising a fare freeze for the next year.
They are freezing fares which still exist, but withdrawing many of the >>>>> cheaper fares. This is a monstrous bit of spin, or stealth price
increase (choose whichever description you prefer).
Exactly. We are starting to get a two tier fares system. Commuter and
regional trains still have off peak flexible fares that arenrCOt too
extortionate. LNER, and I expect shortly other long distance routes, only >>>> have extortionate Anytime tickets, or Advances where they make up any
number they feel like for the fare and also remove flexibility. Now airline
style pricing is fine for airlines, they are private enterprises, and for >>>> most people flexibility isnrCOt really a requirement when flying. But
railways receive significant public funding and I believe part of that >>>> should be a more consumer friendly fare structure.
One of things I see "calls for"[tm] is operator agnostic fares (or we'd
probably call them interavailable).
For example Gatwick Express to be the same price as Thameslink (also
given they are operated by the same TOC). Although the difference is
small.
Contrast with Kings Cross to Peterborough, lots of comparisons to choose >>> from, but try this one:
Flexi Season, Any Permitted: 8 days for -u781.50
GTR Only: 8 days for -u546.70
To equalise them, do you raise one, lower the other, or "meet in the
middle"[tm].
I think itrCOs long established, not just in the UK, that fast,
limited/non-stop expresses have more expensive tickets than slower, less
comfortable, stopping regional trains.
Yes, hence for example the premium for Gatwick Express. But people are loudly "Calling for"[tm] the fare to be the same as Thameslink, to avoid confusing passengers.
Or put another way, they want fares to be roughly per mile, irrespective
of which operator you use. Simpler, they say, but there's a *reason* for
the current 'complications'.
In message <0j6MR.37$cO9.29@fx08.ams1>, at 20:57:32 on Sun, 10 May 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10tpou7$arcv$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:51 on Sun, 10 May
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
It's a fallacy that duplicated functions can always be cost-reduced >>>>>>> by consolidation.Agreed. The mistake often seems to be to miss that their total
"traffic" being dealt with is not going to be less than before.
LetrCOs look at an example where GBR management headcount could be reduced:
Currently, the NR Anglia Route, GA and c2c are being run as a virtual >>>>> integrated organisation, with senior execs taking cross organisational >>>>> responsibilities. However, they are still legally and financially three >>>>> separate organisations, albeit all owned by the DfT. But in 2-3 years time
theyrCOll be merged into a devolved unit of GBR.
They wonrCOt then still need three MDs, three CFOs and three CPOs.
What makes you think they have three full-time ones at the moment?
The marketing and sales organisations will also be combined, with
reduced need for senior executives. They wonrCOt need separate web
sites, apps, delay-repay functions and ticket sales.
The cost of those is down in the noise level, and could well be combined >>> already; the ITSO card for GTR is the old Southern one, and covers all
the franchises, for example.
As far as I could tell, back in the day First combined all the
Delay-Repay and customer service enquiries for every franchise they
held, at one office.
should provide centralised versions of such systems.At the very least, they can combine them in the short term, but GBR
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
And quite a lot of travel doing site visits/inspections across the whole >>> country, rather than just locally.
As already mentioned in many threads, GBR will be regionally devolved.
I didn't know that had been officially announced. The GBR Bill left out
all the detailed implementation stuff.
And what "region" are operators like LNER, Avanti and XC going to be headquartered in?
Not "technical" if they aren't employed by the Crown, the same as e.g.
when the GPO morphed into the Post Office Corporation and thousands of workers ceased to be civil servants.
Being made redundant. ThererCOs a lot of compulsory redundancies across the university sector at the moment as well. Union protection against job
losses is only as good as the ability to strike and the employer to give in first. ThererCOs not so many industries, even in the public sector, where that is still the case. Take the Birmingham bin strike as an example.
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
It is rumoured that the only haircut they perform is skimming their commission off laundered money.
On 10/05/2026 12:07, Tweed wrote:
No, but they will end up with one MD, 3 deputies, 6 sub deputies etc.
Our boss came back from a management meeting full of BS about 'Layers of Management'. He told them the big company that operated the local supermarket had few layers of management so if a girl on the checkout
had a problem, she could speak direct to the store manager to sort it out.
He was sceptical about this so asked someone on a checkout one day.
They laughed and explained how they had a very long management chain
they have to go through.
I know that before we were privatised, we often spoke to very senior
people at Head Office on the phone. After privatisation we never saw or spoke to any of them. I even remember one day when our very senior
manager (virtually GOD himself) in London rang up about something and I
was able to tell him we were busy and told him and I would call him back then put the phone down.
On 11/05/2026 18:31, Certes wrote:
It is rumoured that the only haircut they perform is skimming their
commission off laundered money.
I asked my local (British) barber recently whilst having a haircut. She said the local 'Turkish Barbers' seem to be all Iraqis.
She had spoken to a youngster who being trained by them but he was only being taught one very basic style of cut, she was annoyed because he was
not receiving proper training (I wondered if they were getting a grant
for 'training' him).
On 07/05/2026 19:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
Not "technical" if they aren't employed by the Crown, the same as e.g.
when the GPO morphed into the Post Office Corporation and thousands of
workers ceased to be civil servants.
Despite what the Far Right think, the BBC is not part of the Civil Service.-a But the Civil Service used to treat it as if it was so many people leaving the Civil Service (or military) used to get a job in the
BBC because they could transfer their pension rights to the BBC and eventually move them somewhere else.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 11/05/2026 18:31, Certes wrote:
It is rumoured that the only haircut they perform is skimming their
commission off laundered money.
I asked my local (British) barber recently whilst having a haircut. She said the local 'Turkish Barbers' seem to be all Iraqis.
I think theyrCOre mostly Kurds. Judging by their posters, they seem to be specialists in beards more than haircuts.
She had spoken to a youngster who being trained by them but he was only being taught one very basic style of cut, she was annoyed because he was not receiving proper training (I wondered if they were getting a grant
for 'training' him).
Very possibly. This is what Google AI says:
Yes, barbers in the UK can access various training grants, funding, and financial support, primarily through government-backed apprenticeship
schemes and specific educational loans.
Key Funding Options for Barbers (UK Focus)
Government Funded Apprenticeships (Level 2 & 3): This is the most common
In some ways the BBC was more Civil Service than the Civil Service!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 11:49:42 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (10,064K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,285 |