Should Grand Central be shut down?

[harz99]

Yes it seems so, although that could only move them to York, from where they would need to use the 2 hourly Aberdeen to London LNER service, assuming they were physically able to board an already very busy service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2024 ==

Noting that this was in the inaugural post for this thread, it now appears from the ‘original’ thread that in fact nobody was stranded at Northallerton after all because they went forward on the following TransPennine.

 

[43066]

Noting that this was in the inaugural post for this thread, it now appears from the ‘original’ thread that in fact nobody was stranded at Northallerton after all because they went forward on the following TransPennine.

Thanks, that’s interesting to hear. It was notable that we hadn’t heard from anyone who was actually stranded! A good result in the end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks, that’s interesting to hear. It was notable that we hadn’t heard from anyone who was actually stranded! A good result in the end.

Agreed. Who actually authorised it? GC control or someone else?

The Tweet wasn't excusable, though.

 

[43066]

Agreed. Who actually authorised it? GC control or someone else?

The Tweet wasn't excusable, though.

Not sure, and it would be interesting to know. I’ve posted along these lines on the other thread.

 

[ScottParko]

I’m definitely in the camp of willing to pay less and take the risk. I travel from Hartlepool where transport on the whole is shoddy at best, so links to London/York direct, although unreliable ,are great. Off the top of my head all other stops for GC have other options of travel. Hartlepool has the one line between Newcastle & Middlesbrough. Without GC travel is restricted.

It is possibly worth mentioning that last time we travelled we actually got to London early and comfortable with GC. We travelled home via LNER and Darlington. Unfortunately Northerns sole service between Darlington and Hartlepool on a Sunday was cancelled. That paired with confusingly restrictive tickets meant waiting an age in Darlington and then again in Thornaby when a possible option was to get off at York then Thornaby and home which would’ve actually meant no delay repay. We couldn’t go that route though due to us being required to use TPE. That is all a whinge for a different thread on a different day, but it does show GC can be the positive of a travelling weekend… on very rare occasions.

 

[cslusarc]

I think that there is a view that all Open Acess Operators should be shut down (when their licences expire) because of the perception that the subsidy they receive via Network Rail is unacceptable.

 

[357]

I think that there is a view that all Open Acess Operators should be shut down (when their licences expire) because of the perception that the subsidy they receive via Network Rail is unacceptable.

Do you think the TOCs will pick up the routes?

 

[miklcct]

I do agree with it as well

I don't agree with that. As long as the class is travel is the same (i.e. economy class), the compensation should be the same regardless if the airfare is £1 or £1000, as the product offered is the same, and the loss suffered is the same.

Train delay compensation should also be changed to this way as well.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I don't agree with that. As long as the class is travel is the same (i.e. economy class), the compensation should be the same regardless if the airfare is £1 or £1000, as the product offered is the same, and the loss suffered is the same.

Train delay compensation should also be changed to this way as well.

But airlines offer different fare types for Economy Class. There's a Basic Economy (ie the ticket with the least frills) and then there are Economy Plus tickets which offer flexibility to change flight times, etc. Additionally, some people will pay more than others, if they want inflight food, checked bag, travel insurance, etc.

My point being, some will pay say £50 for an Economy Class ticket, whilst others will pay hundreds of £ for the same class of travel. How do you deal with that?

 

[Watershed]

I think that there is a view that all Open Acess Operators should be shut down (when their licences expire) because of the perception that the subsidy they receive via Network Rail is unacceptable.

I'm not saying they should be completely shut down just because of that - although it does seem a strange use of taxpayers' money to subsidise the operation of a private company that competes with a publicly-owned company...

However it does mean that it's more than fair to impose conditions on their use of the rail network. These should - and indeed do - include making proper arrangements for their passengers when things go wrong.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I'm not saying they should be completely shut down just because of that - although it does seem a strange use of taxpayers' money to subsidise the operation of a private company that competes with a publicly-owned company...

However it does mean that it's more than fair to impose conditions on their use of the rail network. These should - and indeed do - include making proper arrangements for their passengers when things go wrong.

I think that I’d be far more worried that a ‘subsidised’ road network makes it possible for private (coach) companies that compete with ‘publicly owned’ railway TOCs.

I’m not clear what arrangements, such as the Conditions of Carriage, that open access operators are exempt from.

By the end of the thread it wasn’t really clear whether any passengers had actually been stranded at Northallerton in any event.

 

[Megafuss]

At first I thought open access operators were a good thing, but after listening to a Green Signals podcast with the MD of Hull Trains and Lumo, I am convinced they are nothing more than parasites.

When asked directly if First group were prepared to contribute towards the cost of upgrading the power supply north of Newcastle to enable longer trains, the Lumo director would not say yes (there is a conversation to be had blah blah blah). They essentially want to feast after somebody else has paid for the food.

They get preferential rates for track access, which the state controlled operators don't get to then steal thier passengers. Get rid of them, let the legacy TOCs use the paths instead.

 

[Watershed]

I think that I’d be far more worried that a ‘subsidised’ road network makes it possible for private (coach) companies that compete with ‘publicly owned’ railway TOCs.

I’m not clear what arrangements, such as the Conditions of Carriage, that open access operators are exempt from.

By the end of the thread it wasn’t really clear whether any passengers had actually been stranded at Northallerton in any event.

The road network isn't subsidised in direct financial terms - in fact, it generates a substantial premium for the Treasury when Vehicle Excise Duty and fuel duty are considered.

Of course the environmental impact is another question, but if you look at it from a pure financial standpoint there can be no question that Grand Central et al are subsidised by the government, to compete against the government.

The information now available suggests that GC passengers travelled on TPE as far as York - whether with permission or otherwise. But it's far from clear that any assistance was provided in York, and I imagine most of them either gave up and returned home, bought a new ticket, or travelled on LNER (or other routes/operators) and were wrongly charged for new tickets.

I really don't know why you appear to be so willing to excuse GC's shocking behaviour here.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Apart from a misleading ‘Tweet’ I’m still in the dark what ‘shocking behaviour’ occurred (besides supposition on this Forum). Train failed. Passengers went forward on a following service by a different operator.

Meanwhile we have another thread about high numbers of morning peak services cancelled by a public operator (Northern) without any obvious assistance at many unstaffed wayside stations.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

At first I thought open access operators were a good thing, but after listening to a Green Signals podcast with the MD of Hull Trains and Lumo, I am convinced they are nothing more than parasites.

When asked directly if First group were prepared to contribute towards the cost of upgrading the power supply north of Newcastle to enable longer trains, the Lumo director would not say yes (there is a conversation to be had blah blah blah). They essentially want to feast after somebody else has paid for the food.

They get preferential rates for track access, which the state controlled operators don't get to then steal thier passengers. Get rid of them, let the legacy TOCs use the paths instead.

There's certainly a discussion to be had about how the finances of the railway should be managed, and the disparities between the franchised (for now, or "in-name-only" as they may be) operators and the Open Access players. Hull Trains and Grand Central do fulfil a role that successive franchisees on the East Coast have ignored... but having established themselves it would now be difficult (and/or unlawful) for the OLR-owned LNER to usurp... that is, depending on what GBR ends up being.

Ideally, a shiny new nationalised operator would simply absorb the OA routes and roll them into the existing ECML operations... though that would mean compensating the current owners, lest we want to get into the dangerous territory of the state seizure of assets.

The customer service aspect of Grand Central themselves is a bit of a side issue, though the regulatory framework does play a part in that. As far as the question in the thread title, how exactly would "shutting down" GC work? If was simply amalgamation into GBR, I'm on board providing it's done right and the services continue in a reasonable form. After all, the existence of OA operators is a demonstration that the franchised operators back in 1997 were not set up to be able to innovate with new routes.

 

[Meerkat]

At first I thought open access operators were a good thing, but after listening to a Green Signals podcast with the MD of Hull Trains and Lumo, I am convinced they are nothing more than parasites.

When asked directly if First group were prepared to contribute towards the cost of upgrading the power supply north of Newcastle to enable longer trains, the Lumo director would not say yes (there is a conversation to be had blah blah blah). They essentially want to feast after somebody else has paid for the food.

They get preferential rates for track access, which the state controlled operators don't get to then steal thier passengers. Get rid of them, let the legacy TOCs use the paths instead.

I don’t think he can be expected to say any more, as it would affect future commercial negotiating positions.

 

[TUC]

I think that there is a view that all Open Acess Operators should be shut down (when their licences expire) because of the perception that the subsidy they receive via Network Rail is unacceptable.

Even if the communities they serve benefit from the services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if the communities they serve benefit from the services?

The question with OAOs is about whether the network as a whole benefits, not the individual communities/groups they target - I'm sure the people of Altnabreac* would love a direct sleeper service to Euston, but I don't think the one coach it would justify at most taking a path up would be very sensible. I don't think I would get rid of them all, but I would be looking at policies like "no trains planned** to be under 200m on the principal London mainlines between 0600 and 2000 weekdays and Saturdays, and 1200-2200 Sundays" for instance, which would apply to LNER etc as much as to OAOs.

* Topical I know
* Short forming is better than cancellation

 

[TUC]

The question with OAOs is about whether the network as a whole benefits, not the individual communities/groups they target - I'm sure the people of Altnabreac* would love a direct sleeper service to Euston, but I don't think the one coach it would justify at most taking a path up would be very sensible. I don't think I would get rid of them all, but I would be looking at policies like "no trains planned** to be under 200m on the principal London mainlines between 0600 and 2000 weekdays and Saturdays, and 1200-2200 Sundays" for instance, which would apply to LNER etc as much as to OAOs.

* Topical I know
* Short forming is better than cancellation

The problem with that approach is that it is purely historical accident which towns ended up on the ECML or WCML. There's no more justification for Runcorn or Grantham to have through services to London than there is for Halifax or Hull. It isn't just about the network as an entity standing alone from society. It's about levelling up and other social and economic factors.

 

[Clarence Yard]

At first I thought open access operators were a good thing, but after listening to a Green Signals podcast with the MD of Hull Trains and Lumo, I am convinced they are nothing more than parasites.

When asked directly if First group were prepared to contribute towards the cost of upgrading the power supply north of Newcastle to enable longer trains, the Lumo director would not say yes (there is a conversation to be had blah blah blah). They essentially want to feast after somebody else has paid for the food.

They get preferential rates for track access, which the state controlled operators don't get to then steal thier passengers. Get rid of them, let the legacy TOCs use the paths instead.

They don’t get “preferable rates” for track access - they pay variable rates on the same basis as everyone else. Lumo actually pays more because it pays ICC.

Fixed Track Access is not a real track access charge. When I paid it, I knew it was just the DfT passing money through my TOC as another form of Network Grant. It played no part in the business decisions of my TOC and it varied up and down each year (sometimes by tens of millions) and our DfT payments varied accordingly. We were just laundering a NR subsidy payment.

The current legal framework is that ALL operators only pay marginal charges plus a mark up “when the market can bear it”. So the State has to subsidise NR’s residual funding requirement either directly or indirectly - nobody can pay full cost recovery, whatever that really is. If NR’s legal status (as a, so called, independent infrastructure provider) changes and the access and management regs also change, which they both shortly will, then the charging framework can change.

If an infrastructure scheme is not part of any sole use investment clause in an operators TAA, it is “free to use” by any operator. That’s the law. One of the things that killed the HT electrification scheme to Hull was the unwillingness of NR/DfT to agree that the OA operator could recoup some of the considerable costs of the investment through charging other users via NR. That is why the MD of HT/Lumo would be hesitating in the podcast - he fears a repeat!

 

[357]

They don’t get “preferable rates” for track access - they pay variable rates on the same basis as everyone else. Lumo actually pays more because it pays ICC.

Fixed Track Access is not a real track access charge. When I paid it, I knew it was just the DfT passing money through my TOC as another form of Network Grant. It played no part in the business decisions of my TOC and it varied up and down each year (sometimes by tens of millions) and our DfT payments varied accordingly. We were just laundering a NR subsidy payment.

The current legal framework is that ALL operators only pay marginal charges plus a mark up “when the market can bear it”. So the State has to subsidise NR’s residual funding requirement either directly or indirectly - nobody can pay full cost recovery, whatever that really is. If NR’s legal status (as a, so called, independent infrastructure provider) changes and the access and management regs also change, which they both shortly will, then the charging framework can change.

If an infrastructure scheme is not part of any sole use investment clause in an operators TAA, it is “free to use” by any operator. That’s the law. One of the things that killed the HT electrification scheme to Hull was the unwillingness of NR/DfT to agree that the OA operator could recoup some of the considerable costs of the investment through charging other users via NR. That is why the MD of HT/Lumo would be hesitating in the podcast - he fears a repeat!

Thanks for once again coming on here and posting facts - your knowledgable posts are always an interesting read.

 

[43066]

Apart from a misleading ‘Tweet’ I’m still in the dark what ‘shocking behaviour’ occurred (besides supposition on this Forum). Train failed. Passengers went forward on a following service by a different operator.

That’s also my take.

I imagine most of them either gave up and returned home, bought a new ticket, or travelled on LNER (or other routes/operators) and were wrongly charged for new tickets.

I really don't know why you appear to be so willing to excuse GC's shocking behaviour here.

This is all your own supposition, though. We don’t actually know what happened. I don’t really know why you appear to dislike GC so much, and seem so keen to apportion blame, without knowing any facts!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2024 ==

The question with OAOs is about whether the network as a whole benefits, not the individual communities/groups they target

I think the idea is that need to be able to show they are growing the market, rather than abstracting revenue from the existing TOCs. AIUI the ECML OAs have all been pretty successful in doing so. It’s hardly as if LNER are short of passengers!