For reasons I'll be discussing in other social media, today I took an
unexpected rail trip. Highlights were:

No Cross Country posters about First Class meals (or anything much else
apart from engineering works).

Class 700 trains on fast services to Kings Cross (both inbound and
outbound).

Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had one
red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.

I just missed a train therefore so had to wait 55 minutes for the next
one.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> For reasons I'll be discussing in other social media, today I took an
> unexpected rail trip. Highlights were:
>
> No Cross Country posters about First Class meals (or anything much else
> apart from engineering works).

So that's an improvement.

>
> Class 700 trains on fast services to Kings Cross (both inbound and
> outbound).
>
> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had one
> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.

I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to cover for
365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s, and subsequently returned to GN.
I suppose they'll return to GX when the 379s are deployed, thus allowing
the 4tph GX service to resume.

In message <RJbUN.52773$Lw2.41524@fx11.ams1>, at 16:18:57 on Thu, 18 Apr
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> For reasons I'll be discussing in other social media, today I took an
>> unexpected rail trip. Highlights were:
>>
>> No Cross Country posters about First Class meals (or anything much else
>> apart from engineering works).
>
>So that's an improvement.

A co-incidence perhaps. The station now has almost exclusively Greater
Anglia posters, despite those being a minority of the services passing
through (1.5tph, versus 1 or 2tph GN depending on the time of day, 1tph
EMT and 1tph XC).

>> Class 700 trains on fast services to Kings Cross (both inbound and
>> outbound).
>>
>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had one
>> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>
>I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to cover for
>365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,

Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
doesn't bother with (in any new colour).

>and subsequently returned to GN.

>I suppose they'll return to GX

To be re-vinyled in red?

>when the 379s are deployed, thus allowing the 4tph GX service to
>resume.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <RJbUN.52773$Lw2.41524@fx11.ams1>, at 16:18:57 on Thu, 18 Apr
> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> For reasons I'll be discussing in other social media, today I took an
>>> unexpected rail trip. Highlights were:
>>>
>>> No Cross Country posters about First Class meals (or anything much else
>>> apart from engineering works).
>>
>> So that's an improvement.
>
> A co-incidence perhaps. The station now has almost exclusively Greater
> Anglia posters, despite those being a minority of the services passing
> through (1.5tph, versus 1 or 2tph GN depending on the time of day, 1tph
> EMT and 1tph XC).
>
>>> Class 700 trains on fast services to Kings Cross (both inbound and
>>> outbound).
>>>
>>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had one
>>> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>>
>> I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to cover for
>> 365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,
>
> Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
> doesn't bother with (in any new colour).

Purely speculation, but I wonder if the DfT was embarrassed that its shiny
new, hideously expensive, cracked IETs were having to be withdrawn for
urgent safety inspections, and possible rectification work? As such, it
probably didn't want to make it too obvious that slower replacement trains
had to borrowed from another operator.

As for GN, the policy seems to be not to re-livery temporarily borrowed
stock.

>
>> and subsequently returned to GN.
>
>> I suppose they'll return to GX
>
> To be re-vinyled in red?

I would expect so, as that's their long-term livery.

In message <8ehUN.79948$kt2.37867@fx13.ams1>, at 22:34:44 on Thu, 18 Apr
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had one
>>>> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>>>
>>> I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to cover for
>>> 365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,
>>
>> Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
>> doesn't bother with (in any new colour).
>
>Purely speculation, but I wonder if the DfT was embarrassed that its shiny
>new, hideously expensive, cracked IETs were having to be withdrawn for
>urgent safety inspections, and possible rectification work? As such, it
>probably didn't want to make it too obvious that slower replacement trains
>had to borrowed from another operator.
>
>As for GN, the policy seems to be not to re-livery temporarily

FSVO "temporarily", it's over three years now (that's when I took the
photo).

>borrowed stock.

The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:25:55 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <8ehUN.79948$kt2.37867@fx13.ams1>, at 22:34:44 on Thu, 18 Apr
>2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had one
>>>>> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>>>>
>>>> I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to cover for
>>>> 365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,
>>>
>>> Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
>>> doesn't bother with (in any new colour).
>>
>>Purely speculation, but I wonder if the DfT was embarrassed that its shiny
>>new, hideously expensive, cracked IETs were having to be withdrawn for
>>urgent safety inspections, and possible rectification work? As such, it
>>probably didn't want to make it too obvious that slower replacement trains
>>had to borrowed from another operator.
>>
>>As for GN, the policy seems to be not to re-livery temporarily
>
>FSVO "temporarily", it's over three years now (that's when I took the
>photo).

It was always intended to be a temporary transfer, even though the duration wasn't known.

>
>>borrowed stock.
>
>The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.

I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line. Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s
could have caused confusion at Paddington.

In message <dvi42j58m43gq87mt369f1d5btv8c9msv8@4ax.com>, at 11:50:38 on
Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:25:55 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <8ehUN.79948$kt2.37867@fx13.ams1>, at 22:34:44 on Thu, 18 Apr
>>2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had one
>>>>>> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to cover for
>>>>> 365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,
>>>>
>>>> Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
>>>> doesn't bother with (in any new colour).
>>>
>>>Purely speculation, but I wonder if the DfT was embarrassed that its shiny
>>>new, hideously expensive, cracked IETs were having to be withdrawn for
>>>urgent safety inspections, and possible rectification work? As such, it
>>>probably didn't want to make it too obvious that slower replacement trains
>>>had to borrowed from another operator.
>>>
>>>As for GN, the policy seems to be not to re-livery temporarily
>>
>>FSVO "temporarily", it's over three years now (that's when I took the
>>photo).
>
>It was always intended to be a temporary transfer, even though the
>duration wasn't known.

All a bit Humpty Dumpty.

>>>borrowed stock.
>>
>>The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>
>I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>confusion at Paddington.

Whereas people in East Anglia are less easily confused by the muddled
branding?

Another example being Greater Anglia routinely running (probably these
same trains) all the way from Liverpool St to Cambridge - and
occasionally on to Kings Lynn) - when they didn't even stop at Stansted
en-route.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/04/2024 11:57, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <dvi42j58m43gq87mt369f1d5btv8c9msv8@4ax.com>, at 11:50:38 on
> Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:25:55 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <8ehUN.79948$kt2.37867@fx13.ams1>, at 22:34:44 on Thu, 18 Apr
>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to
>>>>>> cover for
>>>>>> 365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
>>>>> doesn't bother with (in any new colour).
>>>>
>>>> Purely speculation, but I wonder if the DfT was embarrassed that its
>>>> shiny
>>>> new, hideously expensive, cracked IETs were having to be withdrawn for
>>>> urgent safety inspections, and possible rectification work? As such, it
>>>> probably didn't want to make it too obvious that slower replacement
>>>> trains
>>>> had to borrowed from another operator.
>>>>
>>>> As for GN, the policy seems to be not to re-livery temporarily
>>>
>>> FSVO "temporarily", it's over three years now (that's when I took the
>>> photo).
>>
>> It was always intended to be a temporary transfer, even though the
>> duration wasn't known.
>
> All a bit Humpty Dumpty.
>
>>>> borrowed stock.
>>>
>>> The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>> same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>>
>> I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>> Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>> confusion at Paddington.

Hold it.

Only one ToC operates services at the main Paddington railway station so
the livery is irreverent.

Three ToCs provide services at Ely railway station which is a massive
distraction when you have a restricted ticket.

> Whereas people in East Anglia are less easily confused by the muddled
> branding?
>
> Another example being Greater Anglia routinely running (probably these
> same trains) all the way from Liverpool St to Cambridge - and
> occasionally on to Kings Lynn) - when they didn't even stop at Stansted
> en-route.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:22:37 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 19/04/2024 11:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <dvi42j58m43gq87mt369f1d5btv8c9msv8@4ax.com>, at 11:50:38 on
>> Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:25:55 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <8ehUN.79948$kt2.37867@fx13.ams1>, at 22:34:44 on Thu, 18 Apr
>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still had
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to
>>>>>>> cover for
>>>>>>> 365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
>>>>>> doesn't bother with (in any new colour).
>>>>>
>>>>> Purely speculation, but I wonder if the DfT was embarrassed that its
>>>>> shiny
>>>>> new, hideously expensive, cracked IETs were having to be withdrawn for
>>>>> urgent safety inspections, and possible rectification work? As such, it
>>>>> probably didn't want to make it too obvious that slower replacement
>>>>> trains
>>>>> had to borrowed from another operator.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for GN, the policy seems to be not to re-livery temporarily
>>>>
>>>> FSVO "temporarily", it's over three years now (that's when I took the
>>>> photo).
>>>
>>> It was always intended to be a temporary transfer, even though the
>>> duration wasn't known.
>>
>> All a bit Humpty Dumpty.
>>
>>>>> borrowed stock.
>>>>
>>>> The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>>> same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>>>
>>> I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>>> Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>>> confusion at Paddington.
>
>Hold it.
>
>Only one ToC operates services at the main Paddington railway station so
>the livery is irreverent.

HEx is different to GWR, even though GWR actually operates HEx. Those borrowed GX 387s would have been operating
alongside HEx 387s at Paddington.

>
>Three ToCs provide services at Ely railway station which is a massive
>distraction when you have a restricted ticket.

It seems not to have bothered GN to operate borrowed stock with other liveries.

In message <uvtnmd$302uk$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:22:37 on Fri, 19 Apr
2024, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 19/04/2024 11:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <dvi42j58m43gq87mt369f1d5btv8c9msv8@4ax.com>, at 11:50:38
>>on Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:25:55 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <8ehUN.79948$kt2.37867@fx13.ams1>, at 22:34:44 on Thu, 18 Apr
>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Very helpful chap in the operations room, who said they still
>>>>>>>>had one red Gatex train and three green GWR ones deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the latter are also GX trains which were loaned to GN to
>>>>>>>cover for 365s, and then to GWR, to cover for 800s,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting they decided to re-vinyl them in dark green. Something GN
>>>>>> doesn't bother with (in any new colour).
>>>>>
>>>>> Purely speculation, but I wonder if the DfT was embarrassed that
>>>>>its shiny new, hideously expensive, cracked IETs were having to
>>>>>be withdrawn for urgent safety inspections, and possible
>>>>>rectification work? As such, it probably didn't want to make it
>>>>>too obvious that slower replacement trains had to borrowed from another operator.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for GN, the policy seems to be not to re-livery temporarily
>>>>
>>>> FSVO "temporarily", it's over three years now (that's when I took the
>>>> photo).
>>>
>>> It was always intended to be a temporary transfer, even though the
>>>duration wasn't known.
>> All a bit Humpty Dumpty.
>>
>>>>> borrowed stock.
>>>>
>>>> The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>>> same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>>>
>>> I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>>>Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>>>confusion at Paddington.
>
>Hold it.
>
>Only one ToC operates services at the main Paddington railway station
>so the livery is irreverent.
>
>Three ToCs provide services at Ely railway station

Actually it's four (I listed them yesterday: GA, GN, XC and EMR)

>which is a massive distraction when you have a restricted ticket.

I was there yesterday and they were putting rather confusing (for some
I'm sure) footnotes on the PIS, for example XC's Birmingham service
"GA-only tickets are not valid on this train".

But there's only one very obscure GA-Only ticket, even as far as
Peterborough (GA F&F OP Rtn). It also has some hilarious restrictions
listed on brfares: "Not valid to depart Cowes East by Red Funnel Ship
04:30-09:14"

I can't get The Trainline to sell me one, and it's a bit lame anyway
because there's only one train every two hours (first valid one at 9am).

>> Whereas people in East Anglia are less easily confused by the muddled
>>branding?

>> Another example being Greater Anglia routinely running (probably
>>these same trains) all the way from Liverpool St to Cambridge - and
>>occasionally on to Kings Lynn) - when they didn't even stop at
>>Stansted en-route.
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <mio42jplltnnsb82vq6d7kqi2un3jnrja1@4ax.com>, at 13:27:58 on
Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Three ToCs provide services at Ely railway station which is a massive
>>distraction when you have a restricted ticket.
>
>It seems not to have bothered GN to operate borrowed stock with other liveries.

There's lots of things they aren't bothered about, just as failing to
deliver smartcards "across their whole network" for the last nine years,
and for Electrostars they still play a message on the approach to
Littleport from Ely saying it's only possible to alight from the front
four carriages, when the platform was lengthened to eight, three years
ago.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:57:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>>>
>>>The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>>same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>>
>>I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>>Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>>confusion at Paddington.
>
>Whereas people in East Anglia are less easily confused by the muddled
>branding?
>
>Another example being Greater Anglia routinely running (probably these
>same trains) all the way from Liverpool St to Cambridge - and
>occasionally on to Kings Lynn) - when they didn't even stop at Stansted
>en-route.

I think your choice of tense is wrong. GA don't run anything to Kings
Lynn these days, and I don't know of any class 745, Stansted Express
or Norwich version, running to Cambridge. The 379s did tend to be used
interchangeably but those days are some time in the past.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:32:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>
>I was there yesterday and they were putting rather confusing (for some
>I'm sure) footnotes on the PIS, for example XC's Birmingham service
>"GA-only tickets are not valid on this train".
>
>But there's only one very obscure GA-Only ticket, even as far as
>Peterborough (GA F&F OP Rtn). It also has some hilarious restrictions
>listed on brfares: "Not valid to depart Cowes East by Red Funnel Ship
>04:30-09:14"
>
The Hare Fares promotions run by GA several times per year are GA-only
so the PIS advice is useful.

In message <0spk2j5jcmenj342uk3vcl23t3jtkq220e@4ax.com>, at 15:26:20 on
Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:57:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>>>same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>>>
>>>I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>>>Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>>>confusion at Paddington.
>>
>>Whereas people in East Anglia are less easily confused by the muddled
>>branding?
>>
>>Another example being Greater Anglia routinely running (probably these
>>same trains) all the way from Liverpool St to Cambridge - and
>>occasionally on to Kings Lynn) - when they didn't even stop at Stansted
>>en-route.
>
>I think your choice of tense is wrong. GA don't run anything to Kings
>Lynn these days,

Tense isn't relevant, this is precedent.

>and I don't know of any class 745, Stansted Express or Norwich version,
>running to Cambridge.

The precedent predates FLIRTs. And I'm not sure I've seen one liveried
"Stansted Express" anyway.

>The 379s did tend to be used interchangeably but those days are some
>time in the past.

What's important is they were happy to do it, despite the potential
confusion.
--
Roland Perry

In message <v2qk2jh2h08d5lbfk0krrrbhsqlpvvq81o@4ax.com>, at 15:28:46 on
Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:32:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I was there yesterday and they were putting rather confusing (for some
>>I'm sure) footnotes on the PIS, for example XC's Birmingham service
>>"GA-only tickets are not valid on this train".
>>
>>But there's only one very obscure GA-Only ticket, even as far as
>>Peterborough (GA F&F OP Rtn). It also has some hilarious restrictions
>>listed on brfares: "Not valid to depart Cowes East by Red Funnel Ship
>>04:30-09:14"
>>
>The Hare Fares promotions run by GA several times per year are GA-only
>so the PIS advice is useful.

What is this Hares Fares thing. Remember, we are talking about a 0.5tph
flow.
--
Roland Perry

On 25/04/2024 18:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <v2qk2jh2h08d5lbfk0krrrbhsqlpvvq81o@4ax.com>, at 15:28:46 on
> Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:32:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was there yesterday and they were putting rather confusing (for some
>>> I'm sure) footnotes on the PIS, for example XC's Birmingham service
>>> "GA-only tickets are not valid on this train".
>>>
>>> But there's only one very obscure GA-Only ticket, even as far as
>>> Peterborough (GA F&F OP Rtn). It also has some hilarious restrictions
>>> listed on brfares: "Not valid to depart Cowes East by Red Funnel Ship
>>> 04:30-09:14"
>>>
>> The Hare Fares promotions run by GA several times per year are GA-only
>> so the PIS advice is useful.
>
> What is this Hares Fares thing. Remember, we are talking about a 0.5tph
> flow.

<https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/harefares>
The promotion has now ended. I suspect it was to commemorate March.
(The month rather than the station.)

In message <v0ealn$35tdh$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:24:39 on Thu, 25 Apr
2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 25/04/2024 18:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <v2qk2jh2h08d5lbfk0krrrbhsqlpvvq81o@4ax.com>, at 15:28:46
>>on Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:32:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was there yesterday and they were putting rather confusing (for some
>>>> I'm sure) footnotes on the PIS, for example XC's Birmingham service
>>>> "GA-only tickets are not valid on this train".
>>>>
>>>> But there's only one very obscure GA-Only ticket, even as far as
>>>> Peterborough (GA F&F OP Rtn). It also has some hilarious restrictions
>>>> listed on brfares: "Not valid to depart Cowes East by Red Funnel Ship
>>>> 04:30-09:14"
>>>>
>>> The Hare Fares promotions run by GA several times per year are GA-only
>>> so the PIS advice is useful.
>> What is this Hares Fares thing. Remember, we are talking about a
>>0.5tph flow.
>
><https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/harefares>
>The promotion has now ended. I suspect it was to commemorate March.
>(The month rather than the station.)

It's not obvious from that whether they included Ely to Peterborough
(via March the station).

--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:03:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>>>
>>The Hare Fares promotions run by GA several times per year are GA-only
>>so the PIS advice is useful.
>
>What is this Hares Fares thing. Remember, we are talking about a 0.5tph
>flow.

Yes, but GA do operate between ELY and PBO. Whenever Hare Fares are
announced I buy several. The window to buy them is quite short, but
you can get them for off-peak GA-only journeys many weeks in advance.
If I had a trip to Peterborough coming up I'd certainly get a Hare
Fare if I could. I'd know that I was limited to the 0.5tph service so
could not use XC or EMR services. I wouldn't need an announcement but
some might.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:24:39 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:

>>>>
>>> The Hare Fares promotions run by GA several times per year are GA-only
>>> so the PIS advice is useful.
>>
>> What is this Hares Fares thing. Remember, we are talking about a 0.5tph
>> flow.
>
><https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/harefares>
>The promotion has now ended. I suspect it was to commemorate March.
>(The month rather than the station.)

No, a hare is their personification in publicity material and the
scheme occurs very few months. They're very good value but have gone
up 20% this year.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:08:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <0spk2j5jcmenj342uk3vcl23t3jtkq220e@4ax.com>, at 15:26:20 on
>Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:57:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>>>>same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>>>>
>>>>I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>>>>Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>>>>confusion at Paddington.
>>>
>>>Whereas people in East Anglia are less easily confused by the muddled
>>>branding?
>>>
>>>Another example being Greater Anglia routinely running (probably these
>>>same trains) all the way from Liverpool St to Cambridge - and
>>>occasionally on to Kings Lynn) - when they didn't even stop at Stansted
>>>en-route.
>>
>>I think your choice of tense is wrong. GA don't run anything to Kings
>>Lynn these days,
>
>Tense isn't relevant, this is precedent.
>
So why not get it right and make a bit of sense?

In message <2lom2jhupk3s84ku7l9vi5p7vnh294hlr2@4ax.com>, at 09:21:50 on
Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:03:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>The Hare Fares promotions run by GA several times per year are GA-only
>>>so the PIS advice is useful.
>>
>>What is this Hares Fares thing. Remember, we are talking about a 0.5tph
>>flow.
>
>Yes, but GA do operate between ELY and PBO. Whenever Hare Fares are
>announced I buy several. The window to buy them is quite short, but
>you can get them for off-peak GA-only journeys many weeks in advance.
>If I had a trip to Peterborough coming up I'd certainly get a Hare
>Fare if I could. I'd know that I was limited to the 0.5tph service so
>could not use XC or EMR services.

Or GN to get from Cambridge to Ely to pick up the service from Ipswich.

>I wouldn't need an announcement but some might.

Strictly speaking it's not an announcement, but a fairly prominent
footnote on the PIS.
--
Roland Perry

In message <16pm2j5io6b30kpnnh7iej44s986jouusl@4ax.com>, at 09:24:53 on
Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:08:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <0spk2j5jcmenj342uk3vcl23t3jtkq220e@4ax.com>, at 15:26:20 on
>>Thu, 25 Apr 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:57:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>The soon(?) to arrive ex Stansted Express stock isn't "borrowed" in the
>>>>>>same sense, will be interesting to see if they re-livery it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think they will, because it could cause confusion on that line.
>>>>>Similarly, seeing GX-liveried 387s next to HEx 387s could have caused
>>>>>confusion at Paddington.
>>>>
>>>>Whereas people in East Anglia are less easily confused by the muddled
>>>>branding?
>>>>
>>>>Another example being Greater Anglia routinely running (probably these
>>>>same trains) all the way from Liverpool St to Cambridge - and
>>>>occasionally on to Kings Lynn) - when they didn't even stop at Stansted
>>>>en-route.
>>>
>>>I think your choice of tense is wrong. GA don't run anything to Kings
>>>Lynn these days,
>>
>>Tense isn't relevant, this is precedent.
>>
>So why not get it right and make a bit of sense?

Get what right. I correctly gave examples where the TOCs in question
have been completely unconcerned by "wrong" liveries. What makes you
think they'll suddenly change their spots?
--
Roland Perry