BBC News

Harry Potter train operator loses High Court door safety challenge

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-67804969

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> BBC News
>
> Harry Potter train operator loses High Court door safety challenge
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-67804969

Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 22/12/2023 19:20, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.

I missed the cryptic title.

On 22 Dec 2023 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote:
>
>
>Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.
>
>Sam
>
But unlike that thread, this one says what it's about rather than
expecting us to follow a link.

--
(Remove numerics from email address)

Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2023 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.
>>
>> Sam
>>
> But unlike that thread, this one says what it's about rather than
> expecting us to follow a link.
>

One assumes that WCRC must have known for some time that it was likely to
lose this battle, and so must have been preparing a contingency plan in
Carnforth. What's the betting that James Shuttleworth will announce in a
few months that after a lot of work, they've managed to devise a more
economic way of meeting this objective and will start the fitting process
as soon as it's approved? I guess it'll be done in-house, to keep costs
down.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 21:35:01 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>One assumes that WCRC must have known for some time that it was likely to
>lose this battle, and so must have been preparing a contingency plan in
>Carnforth. What's the betting that James Shuttleworth will announce in a
>few months that after a lot of work, they've managed to devise a more
>economic way of meeting this objective and will start the fitting process
>as soon as it's approved? I guess it'll be done in-house, to keep costs
>down.

Will there be an award of expenses against the Claimant? The legal
costs will not be insignificant.

In message <9inhN.59967$aZie.33971@fx11.ams1>, at 21:35:01 on Fri, 22
Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2023 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>> But unlike that thread, this one says what it's about rather than
>> expecting us to follow a link.
>
>One assumes that WCRC must have known for some time that it was likely to
>lose this battle, and so must have been preparing a contingency plan in
>Carnforth. What's the betting that James Shuttleworth will announce in a
>few months that after a lot of work, they've managed to devise a more
>economic way of meeting this objective and will start the fitting process
>as soon as it's approved? I guess it'll be done in-house, to keep costs
>down.

Currently they are still insisting that the cost makes the train
service unviable, and that if they withdraw it, the effect on tourism
and hundreds of jobs in its corridor will be devastating.

I wonder if they could crowd-fund it from affected businesses there?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <9inhN.59967$aZie.33971@fx11.ams1>, at 21:35:01 on Fri, 22
> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Dec 2023 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>> But unlike that thread, this one says what it's about rather than
>>> expecting us to follow a link.
>>
>> One assumes that WCRC must have known for some time that it was likely to
>> lose this battle, and so must have been preparing a contingency plan in
>> Carnforth. What's the betting that James Shuttleworth will announce in a
>> few months that after a lot of work, they've managed to devise a more
>> economic way of meeting this objective and will start the fitting process
>> as soon as it's approved? I guess it'll be done in-house, to keep costs
>> down.
>
> Currently they are still insisting that the cost makes the train
> service unviable, and that if they withdraw it, the effect on tourism
> and hundreds of jobs in its corridor will be devastating.
>
> I wonder if they could crowd-fund it from affected businesses there?

The Judicial Review judgement takes issue with the claim about the cost
making the service unviable.
The service makes £1m profit per year.

On 23/12/2023 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <9inhN.59967$aZie.33971@fx11.ams1>, at 21:35:01 on Fri, 22
> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Dec 2023 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>> But unlike that thread, this one says what it's about rather than
>>> expecting us to follow a link.
>>
>> One assumes that WCRC must have known for some time that it was likely to
>> lose this battle, and so must have been preparing a contingency plan in
>> Carnforth. What's the betting that James Shuttleworth will announce in a
>> few months that after a lot of work, they've managed to devise a more
>> economic way of meeting this objective and will start the fitting process
>> as soon as it's approved?  I guess it'll be done in-house, to keep costs
>> down.
>
> Currently they are still insisting that the cost makes the train
> service unviable, and that if they withdraw it, the effect on tourism
> and hundreds of jobs in its corridor will be devastating.
>
> I wonder if they could crowd-fund it from affected businesses there?

Or would another outfit with compliant stock take it over?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <um67ta$20ius$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:46 on Sat, 23 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <9inhN.59967$aZie.33971@fx11.ams1>, at 21:35:01 on Fri, 22
>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22 Dec 2023 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>> But unlike that thread, this one says what it's about rather than
>>>> expecting us to follow a link.
>>>
>>> One assumes that WCRC must have known for some time that it was likely to
>>> lose this battle, and so must have been preparing a contingency plan in
>>> Carnforth. What's the betting that James Shuttleworth will announce in a
>>> few months that after a lot of work, they've managed to devise a more
>>> economic way of meeting this objective and will start the fitting process
>>> as soon as it's approved? I guess it'll be done in-house, to keep costs
>>> down.
>>
>> Currently they are still insisting that the cost makes the train
>> service unviable, and that if they withdraw it, the effect on tourism
>> and hundreds of jobs in its corridor will be devastating.
>>
>> I wonder if they could crowd-fund it from affected businesses there?
>
>The Judicial Review judgement takes issue with the claim about the cost
>making the service unviable.

As far as I can see, they suggest the cost is externalised, by raising
fares. I'm unsighted as to how many passenger-trips they do each year,
but if you tell us, we could begin to calculate the impact.

>The service makes £1m profit per year.

And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
--
Roland Perry

On 23/12/2023 11:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> As far as I can see, they suggest the cost is externalised, by raising
> fares. I'm unsighted as to how many passenger-trips they do each year,
> but if you tell us, we could begin to calculate the impact.

According to latest issue of Railway Magazine.

"750 people travel on the service per day in the peak season"

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <um67ta$20ius$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:46 on Sat, 23 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <9inhN.59967$aZie.33971@fx11.ams1>, at 21:35:01 on Fri, 22
>>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 22 Dec 2023 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC) Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes - see thread titled WCRC claim fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>
>>>>> But unlike that thread, this one says what it's about rather than
>>>>> expecting us to follow a link.
>>>>
>>>> One assumes that WCRC must have known for some time that it was likely to
>>>> lose this battle, and so must have been preparing a contingency plan in
>>>> Carnforth. What's the betting that James Shuttleworth will announce in a
>>>> few months that after a lot of work, they've managed to devise a more
>>>> economic way of meeting this objective and will start the fitting process
>>>> as soon as it's approved? I guess it'll be done in-house, to keep costs
>>>> down.
>>>
>>> Currently they are still insisting that the cost makes the train
>>> service unviable, and that if they withdraw it, the effect on tourism
>>> and hundreds of jobs in its corridor will be devastating.
>>>
>>> I wonder if they could crowd-fund it from affected businesses there?
>>
>> The Judicial Review judgement takes issue with the claim about the cost
>> making the service unviable.
>
> As far as I can see, they suggest the cost is externalised, by raising
> fares. I'm unsighted as to how many passenger-trips they do each year,
> but if you tell us, we could begin to calculate the impact.
>
>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>
> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.

The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
estimates.

In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>
>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>
>The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.

I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.

>If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>estimates.

Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>
>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>
>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>
> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>
>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>> estimates.
>
> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.

76. The Claimant initially estimated the costs of retrofitting central door
locking at £3 million, which was based on an approximate cost of £30,000
per carriage to fit central door locking. As the parties accepted, the
latter figure is broadly in line with the ORR’s assessment of a maximum
cost per carriage of £26,250. The Claimant’s cost estimate later rose to £7
million, which was said to be direct costs and lost revenue. No supporting
evidence was provided. The ORR disputed the estimate. The increase in
estimate appears to relate to loss of revenue but the ORR has indicated
that it is prepared to allow a transition period for the installation of
central door locking and has done so for other operators. The Court was
told that other operators have done the work in January and February, out
of season, so as to reduce the impact on revenue. The Claimant’s Jacobite
train only operates in the summer months, which would enable the work to be
done in the winter months without loss of revenue. “Since the burden of
proof is usually on the person who asserts a fact to be true, if that
burden is not discharged, the court will proceed on the basis that the fact
has not been proved” (R (Talpada) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 84, Hallett LJ at
§2). Accordingly, the Court proceeds on the basis the £7 million estimate
has not been proved.

77. The Claimant’s initial estimate of £3 million was based on an
approximate cost of £30,000 per carriage to fit central door locking. The
Claimant’s application for an exemption indicates that it expects to run
between 1 – 5 services a day. Thus, the costs would range, on the
Claimant’s estimate, from £360,000 - £1,800,000 to operate the requisite
number of daily services. The ORR’s upper estimate was £1,393,920 to fit
out 4 trains for daily use, based on information from Network Rail that it
was not aware of a heritage train operator running more than 4 services a
day.

81. In witness evidence, a representative of the Claimant explained that
the company has 101,429 passenger journeys on the Jacobite line which
generates £4.7 million in fare income and £5.7 million in turnover per
annum. The average return ticket is £46.58 and the average profit is £1
million per annum. It is apparent that a modest rise in fares, in
circumstances where the Court was told that the Claimant has a monopoly and
a relatively price-insensitive customer demographic, ought to enable the
Claimant to meet the cost of fitting central door locking in a phased
manner. A £10 increase in the fare for the Jacobite service would generate
approximately an additional £1million per annum in revenue with no
additional overheads. The ORR has explained to the Court that it is not
averse to a transition timetable for fitting CDL because it does not want
to end the heritage train services.

On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>
>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>
>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>
> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>
>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>> estimates.
>
> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.

I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
the case.

Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.

--
Colin

On 23/12/2023 15:07, ColinR wrote:
> On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>>
>>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you
>>>> can
>>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>>
>>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through
>>> them.
>>
>> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
>> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time
>> than typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better
>> informed.
>>
>>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>>> estimates.
>>
>> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
>> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
>> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
>
>
> I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
> convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
> were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
> and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
> the case.
>
> Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
> results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.
>

Apologies, Tweed's post is clear and was written as I was writing mine!!

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>>
>>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>>
>>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>>
>> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
>> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
>> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>>
>>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>>> estimates.
>>
>> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
>> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
>> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
>
>
> I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
> convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
> were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
> and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
> the case.
>
> Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
> results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.
>

The dispute is over the number ofvcarrisges to be done. WCRC is quoting for
fitting its total fleet, many of which appear to be in near-derelict
condition. Many are now just parts donors. It also seems to be suggesting
that they're all in continuous use, and any withdrawal from service would
lead to a revenue loss. That's baloney.

ORR is going to the other extreme, and saying that as the maximum number of
trains in service on one day is never more than four (probably true), only
4x12 carriages need to be done. That's a significant under-estimate, for
several reasons.

So the real number of carriages to be done is perhaps 60-70. And I bet
frugal WCRS will find ways of getting the cost per carriage a lot lower
than it's claiming.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>>>
>>>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>>>
>>>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>>>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>>>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>>>
>>> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
>>> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
>>> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>>>
>>>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>>>> estimates.
>>>
>>> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
>>> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
>>> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
>>
>>
>> I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
>> convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
>> were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
>> and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
>> the case.
>>
>> Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
>> results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.
>>
>
> The dispute is over the number ofvcarrisges to be done. WCRC is quoting for
> fitting its total fleet, many of which appear to be in near-derelict
> condition. Many are now just parts donors. It also seems to be suggesting
> that they're all in continuous use, and any withdrawal from service would
> lead to a revenue loss. That's baloney.
>
> ORR is going to the other extreme, and saying that as the maximum number of
> trains in service on one day is never more than four (probably true), only
> 4x12 carriages need to be done. That's a significant under-estimate, for
> several reasons.
>
> So the real number of carriages to be done is perhaps 60-70. And I bet
> frugal WCRS will find ways of getting the cost per carriage a lot lower
> than it's claiming.
>
>

How many rakes are in use on the Jacobite? I thought it was just two.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>>>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>>>>
>>>>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>>>>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>>>>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
>>>> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
>>>> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>>>>
>>>>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>>>>> estimates.
>>>>
>>>> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
>>>> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
>>>> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
>>>
>>>
>>> I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
>>> convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
>>> were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
>>> and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
>>> the case.
>>>
>>> Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
>>> results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.
>>>
>>
>> The dispute is over the number ofvcarrisges to be done. WCRC is quoting for
>> fitting its total fleet, many of which appear to be in near-derelict
>> condition. Many are now just parts donors. It also seems to be suggesting
>> that they're all in continuous use, and any withdrawal from service would
>> lead to a revenue loss. That's baloney.
>>
>> ORR is going to the other extreme, and saying that as the maximum number of
>> trains in service on one day is never more than four (probably true), only
>> 4x12 carriages need to be done. That's a significant under-estimate, for
>> several reasons.
>>
>> So the real number of carriages to be done is perhaps 60-70. And I bet
>> frugal WCRS will find ways of getting the cost per carriage a lot lower
>> than it's claiming.
>>
>>
>
> How many rakes are in use on the Jacobite? I thought it was just two.

Yes, but WCRC is quoting figures for doing its entire fleet. That's how it
comes up with such high costs.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>>>>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>>>>>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>>>>>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
>>>>> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
>>>>> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>>>>>> estimates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
>>>>> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
>>>>> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
>>>> convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
>>>> were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
>>>> and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
>>>> the case.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
>>>> results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The dispute is over the number ofvcarrisges to be done. WCRC is quoting for
>>> fitting its total fleet, many of which appear to be in near-derelict
>>> condition. Many are now just parts donors. It also seems to be suggesting
>>> that they're all in continuous use, and any withdrawal from service would
>>> lead to a revenue loss. That's baloney.
>>>
>>> ORR is going to the other extreme, and saying that as the maximum number of
>>> trains in service on one day is never more than four (probably true), only
>>> 4x12 carriages need to be done. That's a significant under-estimate, for
>>> several reasons.
>>>
>>> So the real number of carriages to be done is perhaps 60-70. And I bet
>>> frugal WCRS will find ways of getting the cost per carriage a lot lower
>>> than it's claiming.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How many rakes are in use on the Jacobite? I thought it was just two.
>
> Yes, but WCRC is quoting figures for doing its entire fleet. That's how it
> comes up with such high costs.
>
>

But the court case was talking about 4x12 coaches. Are the other 2 rakes
for other charter services?

In message <um77br$25n91$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>But the court case was talking about 4x12 coaches. Are the other 2 rakes
>for other charter services?
>

The Railway Touring Company often (if not always) use WCRC stock on
their tours. It's not unknown for them to have two tours out on one
day.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>>>>>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>>>>>>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>>>>>>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
>>>>>> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
>>>>>> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>>>>>>> estimates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
>>>>>> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
>>>>>> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
>>>>> convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
>>>>> were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
>>>>> and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
>>>>> the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
>>>>> results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The dispute is over the number ofvcarrisges to be done. WCRC is quoting for
>>>> fitting its total fleet, many of which appear to be in near-derelict
>>>> condition. Many are now just parts donors. It also seems to be suggesting
>>>> that they're all in continuous use, and any withdrawal from service would
>>>> lead to a revenue loss. That's baloney.
>>>>
>>>> ORR is going to the other extreme, and saying that as the maximum number of
>>>> trains in service on one day is never more than four (probably true), only
>>>> 4x12 carriages need to be done. That's a significant under-estimate, for
>>>> several reasons.
>>>>
>>>> So the real number of carriages to be done is perhaps 60-70. And I bet
>>>> frugal WCRS will find ways of getting the cost per carriage a lot lower
>>>> than it's claiming.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many rakes are in use on the Jacobite? I thought it was just two.
>>
>> Yes, but WCRC is quoting figures for doing its entire fleet. That's how it
>> comes up with such high costs.
>>
>>
>
> But the court case was talking about 4x12 coaches. Are the other 2 rakes
> for other charter services?

Yes, that was what ORR said, but WCRC's cost estimates were based on doing
many more coaches.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/12/2023 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <um6m0s$22ofp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:06:36 on Sat, 23 Dec
>>>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The service makes £1m profit per year.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>>>>>>>>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The judgement even gives the cost of fitting each coach, and I even
>>>>>>>> referenced the two paragraph numbers, knowing a) your desire for seeing
>>>>>>>> original sources and b) your lack of enthusiasm for reading through them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have the time today, but as you've obviously read it and have
>>>>>>> the numbers at your fingertips, typing them in would take less time than
>>>>>>> typoing in that quibble. And we'd *all* be instantly better informed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you read these, you will see the court disagrees with WCR’s cost
>>>>>>>> estimates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did they have an expert witness willing to quote less for installing
>>>>>>> such a system. If so then WCR should indeed be hiring them to do the
>>>>>>> work. If that lower quote makes it economic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recall a post in these threads that WCR were talking about the need to
>>>>>> convert over 100 carriages. The numbers referred to in the court case
>>>>>> were 4 trains of 12 carriages each, a total of 48, costing about £1.3m
>>>>>> and not the original £7m quoted by WCR in their press release prior to
>>>>>> the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me that, as usual, there are differing numbers to get differing
>>>>>> results - typical accountants methodology of obscuring facts by numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The dispute is over the number ofvcarrisges to be done. WCRC is quoting for
>>>>> fitting its total fleet, many of which appear to be in near-derelict
>>>>> condition. Many are now just parts donors. It also seems to be suggesting
>>>>> that they're all in continuous use, and any withdrawal from service would
>>>>> lead to a revenue loss. That's baloney.
>>>>>
>>>>> ORR is going to the other extreme, and saying that as the maximum number of
>>>>> trains in service on one day is never more than four (probably true), only
>>>>> 4x12 carriages need to be done. That's a significant under-estimate, for
>>>>> several reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the real number of carriages to be done is perhaps 60-70. And I bet
>>>>> frugal WCRS will find ways of getting the cost per carriage a lot lower
>>>>> than it's claiming.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many rakes are in use on the Jacobite? I thought it was just two.
>>>
>>> Yes, but WCRC is quoting figures for doing its entire fleet. That's how it
>>> comes up with such high costs.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the court case was talking about 4x12 coaches. Are the other 2 rakes
>> for other charter services?
>
> Yes, that was what ORR said, but WCRC's cost estimates were based on doing
> many more coaches.
>
>

Wonder how much they’ve spent on legal fees and costs?

On 23/12/2023 11:37, Roland Perry wrote:

> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.

What is actually involved in fitting CDL? That seems a lot of money for
fitting electrically-operated bolts and/or modifying door catches.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
~~~ Random (signature) 1.6.1

Laurence Taylor <laurence@nospam.plus.com> wrote:
> On 23/12/2023 11:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> And WCR claim fitting the equipment would cost £5m. If you think you can
>> do it for substantially less, then maybe you should put in a bid.
>
> What is actually involved in fitting CDL? That seems a lot of money for
> fitting electrically-operated bolts and/or modifying door catches.
>

The doors and frames will all need modifying, with some sort of override
panel fitted to each. There will need to be sensors to confirm the lock or
release, with signals passed to the guard and driver. The carriages will
need to cabled up, with the lock and confirmation signals passing along the
train. The system will need power (in carriages without a reliable power
supply), for both the locks and the electronics.

ORR thought the cost per carriage should be no more than £26,250; WCRC said
£30k. ORR said up to 48 carriages would need doing; WCRC allowed for 100.
WCRC said there would be a loss of revenue while the carriages were taken
out of service; ORR pointed out that it was amenable to the work being
staged, and that there were quiet periods in the winter when few charters
(and no Jacobites) operated.

Something else that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that WCRC is
currently less busy than before, as it lost Steam Dreams as a customer last
year. That should free up some stock for modifications.