|
|
Post by TC60054 on Aug 20, 2013 11:27:48 GMT
Nice to hear from you again, Manclad. I agree the whole FTP network is not a dedicated route but, on the other hand, the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport route is! Wrong, the South TransPennine route is no different to any other routes. No dedicated airport services - TPX could just easily withdraw the service to the Airport and have it starting / terminating at Piccadilly. No requirement, just there for ease. |
 |
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Aug 20, 2013 13:52:09 GMT
Here is a definition for you, renown: "An airport rail link is a service providing passenger rail transport to/from an airport to/from a nearby City, by mainline,commuter, rapid transit or light rail". The FTPE service in question serves Manchester Airport...a station which was specifically built for use by trains serving the airport...It does so from Manchester and Sheffield ( as well as smaller conurbations along the route) Therefore, it follows, that the southern Route of FTPE is an airport service...and, most importantly, is advertised as such. I quote: " We offer regular and comfortable* train services direct to the heart of Manchester Airport from major towns and cities". I would therefore suggest to you that, by definition, the service is an airport service and is advertised by its Operators as such.I have no doubt they could cut out the Airport and then it most certainly wouldn't be an Airport service... just like it wouldn't be a service to ( say) Stockport if it stopped running there... but until they cut out the airport it is an airport service/link to all who use it to reach the airport! I think we are in real danger of arguing about semantics.  * The matter of "comfort" is questionable...which is why I raised the subject in the first place! |
|
|
|
|
Post by humberside on Aug 20, 2013 17:24:05 GMT
Nice to hear from you again, Manclad. I agree the whole FTP network is not a dedicated route but, on the other hand, the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport route is! Wrong, the South TransPennine route is no different to any other routes. No dedicated airport services - TPX could just easily withdraw the service to the Airport and have it starting / terminating at Piccadilly. No requirement, just there for ease. I'd expect the requirement to serve Manchester Airport as part of the South TPE route to be a franchise commitment that could only be altered with DfT agreement |
|
|
|
|
Post by TC60054 on Aug 20, 2013 19:52:00 GMT
Wrong, the South TransPennine route is no different to any other routes. No dedicated airport services - TPX could just easily withdraw the service to the Airport and have it starting / terminating at Piccadilly. No requirement, just there for ease. I'd expect the requirement to serve Manchester Airport as part of the South TPE route to be a franchise commitment that could only be altered with DfT agreement If that is the case then generally it would be the same with all other routes. I can't see one single route with that commitment when if a journey gets above 20 minutes late it simply gets cancelled in Manchester Piccadilly. |
|
|
sweb
Driver
Posts: 383
|
Post by sweb on Aug 20, 2013 20:28:07 GMT
I'd expect the requirement to serve Manchester Airport as part of the South TPE route to be a franchise commitment that could only be altered with DfT agreement If that is the case then generally it would be the same with all other routes. I can't see one single route with that commitment when if a journey gets above 20 minutes late it simply gets cancelled in Manchester Piccadilly. No different than many other routes, Northern regularly terminate mid-route on late running journeys and they have franchise commitments for them. |
|
|
|
|
Post by TC60054 on Aug 20, 2013 21:06:24 GMT
If that is the case then generally it would be the same with all other routes. I can't see one single route with that commitment when if a journey gets above 20 minutes late it simply gets cancelled in Manchester Piccadilly. No different than many other routes, Northern regularly terminate mid-route on late running journeys and they have franchise commitments for them. Without making an effort? It seems that on this subject people know more than I so until I know what I'm on about fully I'll be shush |
|
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Aug 21, 2013 7:51:14 GMT
The difference between terminating mid -route because of(say) operational problems and eliminating a stop, permanently is, as Humberside suggests, a matter of contract between the the franchisee and the DfT The two cases are quite different!
|
|
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Nov 1, 2013 13:15:12 GMT
I started this topic off with a comment about trains in Canada only allowing the sorts of suitcases widely used by air travellers onto trains with baggage cars...A very sensible idea until I found out that the trains to where I was travelling in Canada only had one train a day with a baggage car...meaning a night in an hotel...So even our overcrowded 185s have advantages. Sadly, the day I came back home drivers were working to rule and the train was terminated at Sheffield...Back home in the good old UK again!
|
|
|
|
|
Post by xtopher on Nov 1, 2013 17:10:28 GMT
I would have laughed my socks off if that Canadian train had been a railbus.
|
|
|
|
|
Post by lysander on Nov 2, 2013 12:47:47 GMT
I don't think ViaRail possesses a single railbus!  |
|
|
