EUREKA's "East Riding Service" by GC

[EWS 58038]

Just noticed the article in the Herald telling us Grand Central is looking into taking over the London-Lincoln service which was proposed under the Eureka TT, but killed by Dft before it even started.

I would more then welcome the "East Riding Service"

And guess what... while Dft estimated it (Lon-Lin) at a annually 6 million loss for the tax payer, I'm sure Grand Central can run the service at a profit.

Any thoughts?

 

[222meridianfan]

that would be brilliant! i do hope its true but i wouldnt of thought they would run as many services as East Coast would of done

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

I think they should be allowed to have a bash at it. I seem remember that there used to be a thing called the Speller Amendment that used to allow a service to run, but be withdrawn without much notice.

Surely if the Speller Amendment is still applicable then they could apply to run the service.

 

[tbtc]

Of course they are going to suggest that they be allowed to provide a service like this. But whilst we have crowding on lots of exisitng services, should we be using scarce units on new routes like this (or their Bradford service)?

 

[anthony263]

Here is a link i found which i posted on the grand central thread:

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...-operator/article-2344471-detail/article.html

 

[swt_passenger]

No paths between KX and Newark surely?

 

[gordonthemoron]

No paths between KX and Newark surely?

presumably, they'd have to take over the EC paths between KX & Newark which are allocated to the terminators

 

[91101]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I was under the understanding that trains wouldnt be terminating at Newark, that the Lincoln "connections" would be provided by four additional calls in other services at Newark?

 

[TheBigD]

No paths between KX and Newark surely?

What about Lincoln-Sleaford-Spalding-Peterborough-Kings Cross though ?
I know that the Joint Line has limited opening hours at present but it is due to be upgraded over the coming few years.

 

[Aictos]

What about Lincoln-Sleaford-Spalding-Peterborough-Kings Cross though ?
I know that the Joint Line has limited opening hours at present but it is due to be upgraded over the coming few years.

Indeed and it's long waited for, OHL would be wishful but it would provide the ECML with a diversionary route other then the Hertford Loop which is technically the only other though electric route available from London for services going though to Peterborough and the north south of York/Newcastle.

 

[A60K]

I think they should be allowed to have a bash at it. I seem remember that there used to be a thing called the Speller Amendment that used to allow a service to run, but be withdrawn without much notice.

Surely if the Speller Amendment is still applicable then they could apply to run the service.

The Speller Amendment (and the closure legislation from the Transport Act which it amended) applied specifically to passenger services being discontinued from stations and sections of lines, rather than to general services.

The purpose of the Speller Amendment was to allow experimental services (stations and lines) to which the normal closure procedure wouldn't apply. The original Corby service was opened and subsequently closed under this, but simple direct trains from A to B along lines that are remain open for other services wouldn't have required this anyway.

A service could and can still be withdrawn without notice or any formal procedure providing that the stations and sections of lines still see some other service. This is how the Nottingham to Glasgow via Settle trains could be withdrawn in 1982ish without a problem, but when BR wanted to actually close the S&C line itself they had to go through the TA1962 procedures - and we all know what happened there!

This is also where the DfT cocked-up with the withdrawal of Reading to Gatwick/Brighton XC services - no problem with the XC services themselves, but the fact that a few minor bits of line in West London lost their passenger services forced the farce with the bus and train replacement services.


Therefore GC could introduce a new service without any worry anyway, as it would all be along lines and to stations with other services already. What could be rather interesting, hypothetically, is if the EC service didn't happend and all other EMT services over the curve between Newark Northgate and the Lincoln line were withdrawn leaving GC as the only operator. If GC then withdrew their trains the DfT would have to step in with a replacement or publish a closure proposal.

Very unlikely that scenario would arise here, but it could potentially happen somewhere else on the network.

 

[dk1]

Sounds great but i hope they get the reliability of their fleet up first. Yesterday at Doncaster announcements came across stating the 13.45 East Riding service was cancelled. I pity passengers at Kirkgate & Pontefract on a sunday. A return middle of the day service was pre-cancelled today also.

 

[daikilo]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I was under the understanding that trains wouldnt be terminating at Newark, that the Lincoln "connections" would be provided by four additional calls in other services at Newark?

Indeed.

Which implies that EC would prefer to offload Lincoln pax from a longer distance service and, allowing for some uplift, depart with some empty seats, or less standing.

Before I take a firm position, I think GC should make clear their proposed track usage in terms of loaded seats for the KX to Newark run.

That said, I hope someone will question which proposal provides best financial value to the DfT etc.

Finally, if the lack of investment in track capacity continues, at some point in the future, nothing will stop (or when it does have more than standing space) anywhere south of say York.

 

[swt_passenger]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I was under the understanding that trains wouldnt be terminating at Newark, that the Lincoln "connections" would be provided by four additional calls in other services at Newark?

That isn't how the ECML Co website explains it:

Under the amendments to the Eureka! timetable, most of the planned new London King’s Cross/Lincoln services will now operate between King’s Cross and Newark, with one through train per day in each direction between Lincoln and King’s Cross.

Four additional services will be available in each direction between Newark and London King’s Cross, provided by East Coast’s nine-carriage trains, and providing valuable extra capacity on this busy route. These will link to connecting services between Newark and Lincoln.

 

[Donny Dave]

I thought it would be better to add in a Newark stop with other services they have planned. IE Alternate an additional stop on their fast Edinburgh services between Doncaster, Newark and Peterborough. That way they don't have to use 1 set on a pretty pointless KX - Newark shuttle.

 

[Failed Unit]

Of course they are going to suggest that they be allowed to provide a service like this. But whilst we have crowding on lots of exisitng services, should we be using scarce units on new routes like this (or their Bradford service)?

I see your point but the units are ones no-one really wants. The taxpayer is no losing anything if they rust away so why should we get first refusal. I understand that franchised operators get first refusal of the ex-br stock.

Let's be honest northern would return the 180s in an instant if there were spare 15xS about. We are stuck with a rock in a hard place because of policy making a rosco taking the risk of ordering new units too risky. Yes we can say tpe could use them but do they or any other operator want them?

The rosco took a risk ordering these trains and have been badly burned so if gc or ht can offer the best deal for them it would be wrong to interfere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about Lincoln-Sleaford-Spalding-Peterborough-Kings Cross though ?
I know that the Joint Line has limited opening hours at present but it is due to be upgraded over the coming few years.

I think that could have good potential if it was not an orcats raid (not saying it is but emt may do). I doubt if gc took the route they would be allowed to stop at Peterborough or Grantham. I doubt they would need 5 units. I also suspect they would not be allowed to make better use of capacity by portion working. That said london - Sunderland or Bradford via Lincoln. . Take over the public service obligation from emt to remove orcats issues as I doubt emt will miss the route and be quite happy to get a 153 back into the Nottingham area.

 

[Max]

No idea why it would be called an 'East Riding' service. The East Riding is the county of the East Riding of Yorkshire (aka. Goole, Howden, Beverley, Bridlington).

 

[tbtc]

I see your point but the units are ones no-one really wants. The taxpayer is no losing anything if they rust away so why should we get first refusal. I understand that franchised operators get first refusal of the ex-br stock.

Let's be honest northern would return the 180s in an instant if there were spare 15xS about. We are stuck with a rock in a hard place because of policy making a rosco taking the risk of ordering new units too risky. Yes we can say tpe could use them but do they or any other operator want them?

The rosco took a risk ordering these trains and have been badly burned so if gc or ht can offer the best deal for them it would be wrong to interfere.

I agree that nobody really wants the 180s, especially not a third of the 180s (as I've said before many times, such small classes should never have been built in the first place).

However, as there aren't any spare 15Xs, and there are a lot of packed trains elsewhere in the UK, should we really be using these twenty five coaches on a brand new service? In an ideal world we'd have sufficient spare stock to allow operators to take risks like this, but since we don't I'd rather use this capacity on existing proven busy services to alleviate congestion

 

[Failed Unit]

I agree that nobody really wants the 180s, especially not a third of the 180s (as I've said before many times, such small classes should never have been built in the first place).

But this was in the day when the ROSCO's made the choice. Great Western holdings wanted a 125mph unit, their wasn't really a proven design back then so the ROSCO went to Alsom. The trains turned out to be a dead duck, but if they were not such dogs maybe others would have ordered them alone. Would we have all the desiro's IF the 458's experience had been positive? Probably not they would have maybe just gone for a follow on order.

The 180's were built with following a request from a TOC for a reasonable length of time which the ROSCO thought was an acceptable risk, the taxpayer took no risk at all on ordering these units and it is the ROSCO that is suffering the lack of demand for them not the taxpayer, so that is why I feel it would be wrong for the taxpayer to have any say about where they go. If it was an ex-BR unit then certainly the franchised operators should have them ahead of open access. If you look back at the early days of privatisation many of the 170's that ended up with Central trains were also ordered with porterbrook taking the risk that they could build them and no operator take them on. 170398 & 170399 (hope numbers are correct) where supposed to be spot hire units. I Rosco could tomorrow build a fleet of DMU's as it is their money, but they need a 30 year return hence why we have this problem as they don't know what will happen beyond the franchise. Even Open access operators dare not sign up to a lease that long as they don't want to be stuck with a long lease if the business plan is wrong or they can't get track access.

However, as there aren't any spare 15Xs, and there are a lot of packed trains elsewhere in the UK, should we really be using these twenty five coaches on a brand new service? In an ideal world we'd have sufficient spare stock to allow operators to take risks like this, but since we don't I'd rather use this capacity on existing proven busy services to alleviate congestion

True, but we can't throw stones either.

Look at 158869 a Northern unit, it was in Scotland while Northern trains were overcrowded and stuck at Haymarket, it did not turn a wheel for 1 year a waste of a unit than at the time both EMT and Northern really needed.

If Grand Central offered the ROSCO a 10 year deal on these units to operate to Lincoln and Northern offer then a 3 year deal then unless the ROSCO was getting more money from Northern in 3 years then they could from GC in 10 over the duration of the contracts then the ROSCO would be insane to let then units go to Northern and the government would be wrong to interfere considering it is the main reason we have this problem.

So the future is electric? So surely building EMU's is risk free? We have overcrowding on many routes, yet a franchised operator with serious overcrowding which has 5x HST's prefers to only diagram 2 of them and let passengers stand. We run DMU's under on 3rd rail route (entire daigrams that never leave the juice) when until very recently we had serviceable EMU's in store. We have too many 395's as we don't have enough passengers for the services they were planned for so a lot sit at Ashford doing nothing, could they not have been used on the London - York shuttles?

On the final part of my rant, we diagram voyagers 100% under the wires but the system won't let a Rosco take the risk of building some more Pendo's maybe a 6 car version to get the Voyagers released to other routes. Someone will say but how will virgin operate diversion and to Holyhead, that is why we operate then 100% of the way under the wires. But how often does that just happen? Most engineering work is planned so dragging the EMU is the way forward, worked for east coast recently with the 67's pulling the 91's. If he wires come down at Newark HST's still get stuffed as the route knowledge isn't there to send them around Lincoln, I don't know how quickly this could be done now even if the drivers signed the route, in BR days it happened frequently.

It would be nice to say open access you can't have the trains until no overcrowding happens on the franchise routes, but if we did that we might as well abandon open access. By the time GC gets the plans approved (should they submit them) the 180's will have left Northern and been replaced by 150's so the debate will probably be accademic anyway.

Maybe for franchised operators we should have a use it or lose it policy for traction as the HST's doing nothing is a joke. I don't disagree with your principle, but I just can't see how we can say no open access until overcrowding is sorted. The use of a 180 on a local service where special door opening arrangements need to take place is probably not the best use of the set either.