Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Grand Central trains typically take just over 90 mins between Kings Cross and Doncaster then almost another 90 to crawl between Doncaster and Bradford. This is not just down to slow line speeds - the working I caught on Saturday had a schedule wait of 11 mins at Wakefield Kirkgate. Other workings have built in delays elsewhere.
This problem has been there ever since GC started.
Are GC deliberately given suboptimal path allocations to protect LNER?
As far as the WTT is concerned open access operators are normally 'last on the graph', always have been, likely always will be. Should they want that to change they'd likely end up having to pay the marginal costs of operation which they currently avoid.
As far as the WTT is concerned open access operators are normally 'last on the graph', always have been, likely always will be. Should they want that to change they'd likely end up having to pay the marginal costs of operation which they currently avoid.
As far as the WTT is concerned open access operators are normally 'last on the graph', always have been, likely always will be. Should they want that to change they'd likely end up having to pay the marginal costs of operation which they currently avoid.
What they pay now is the marginal cost (the extra cost directly attributable to running that extra train). What they would have to pay is part of the fixed cost (all the other costs of keeping the network workable even if no trains actually used it).
As far as the WTT is concerned open access operators are normally 'last on the graph', always have been, likely always will be. Should they want that to change they'd likely end up having to pay the marginal costs of operation which they currently avoid.
Interesting reading here that OA has lowest priority when writing timetables but in another thread also active at the moment users are saying OA take good paths from TOCs and create a headache to planners.
I’ve never seen so much rubbish being printed about OA or the timetabling process.
OA operators have the same priority as anyone else who has “firm rights”. It is just a matter of fitting them onto a network which, in places, is quite congested at the times they want to run.
Track Access Charges have absolutely nothing to do with timetabling or priority.
As far as the WTT is concerned open access operators are normally 'last on the graph', always have been, likely always will be. Should they want that to change they'd likely end up having to pay the marginal costs of operation which they currently avoid.
I understand from trusted sources that @Clarence Yard has access to authoritative sources of information in this area, so I'm inclined not to believe this post, unless you can provide a link to, and quote from, a reputable source (sorry!)
As far as the WTT is concerned open access operators are normally 'last on the graph', always have been, likely always will be. Should they want that to change they'd likely end up having to pay the marginal costs of operation which they currently avoid.
That is interesting, thanks. Yes it does definitely appear that OA operators don’t get great paths. Also their stopping patterns can often be ‘interesting’ (to pass revenue abstraction)
Eurostar is confined to HS1 these days, unless they call Ashford again. Separate Network Code, their priority for inclusion is different to the Network Rail one, and easier in some ways. Nothing beats an international passenger train on HS1. International passenger on international passenger would be interesting.
HEX will depend on the Track Access Contract they have. They may have firm rights to every 15 mins and journey time protection. Most of that has gone away from others and it's purely quantum rights to run x trains between A and B.
Sometimes the all shacks has more rights to be there than the fast long distance.
What they pay now is the marginal cost (the extra cost directly attributable to running that extra train). What they would have to pay is part of the fixed cost (all the other costs of keeping the network workable even if no trains actually used it).
I understand from trusted sources that @Clarence Yard has access to authoritative sources of information in this area, so I'm inclined not to believe this post, unless you can provide a link to, and quote from, a reputable source (sorry!)
When I was part of planning it was always the case that when presenting a bid they'd have to largely work around what was already provided/specified by the TOCs. There was occasionally some flex, but the TOCs weren't exactly willing to provide this, which was quite understandable. That really isn't different to any new request from anyone, and once the paths were established it would be a different matter, and it'd take something quite serious for a path, open access or otherwise, to be kicked out having been there in previous timetables. I think GC have, at times, had to 'put up with' going via a less preferred route to or from West Yorkshire due to capacity constraints. I think that'd come under 'Management of Congested Infrastructure Code of Practice' now, though it's no longer something I deal with.
I think there may be a bit of confusion about access rights, as Network Rail and ORR requests aren't the same thing, and neither are capacity requests, and one doesn't automatically follow the other, but, as I said before, Open Access is little if any different from any operator wanting to set up a new service, but Open Access do usually have the initial problem in starting from zero and having to fit in amongst existing rights with nothing to 'piggyback' on, like extending a service.
I’ll repeat, just so that no-one gets confused and I’ll explain (in a simplified way) how the charging works.
NR gets most of its income from Network Grant, straight from Government. It then levies marginal cost charges (as agreed by the ORR) on all operators. This leaves an annual funding gap.
So what the Government does is fund that annual gap through the former franchised TOCs. That gap is divided up amongst those TOCs and is the fixed track access payment. It is, in effect, a form of laundered subsidy to NR, which goes up and down each year. It is not a “real” charge.
When it comes to timetabling, there is a hierarchy of rights (see Part D of the Network Code, which is legally enforceable) but everyone who has “firm rights” should be treated the same. Those who have “contingent rights” come second and those who “aspire” to rights come third. Rights are awarded by (only) the ORR who “directs” NR to enter into a Track Access Contract or amendment thereto.
The more complicated your train service (in terms of lines used), the more problems you are going to have in gaining a clean path. Going through Leeds and out the other side is a known issue, especially if you have to then hit a path on the ECML.
That's it. Back end of a 12hr so if that was the least of what I got mixed up I'll be happy!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
When I was part of planning it was always the case that when presenting a bid they'd have to largely work around what was already provided/specified by the TOCs. There was occasionally some flex, but the TOCs weren't exactly willing to provide this, which was quite understandable. That really isn't different to any new request from anyone, and once the paths were established it would be a different matter, and it'd take something quite serious for a path, open access or otherwise, to be kicked out having been there in previous timetables. I think GC have, at times, had to 'put up with' going via a less preferred route to or from West Yorkshire due to capacity constraints. I think that'd come under 'Management of Congested Infrastructure Code of Practice' now, though it's no longer something I deal with.
I think there may be a bit of confusion about access rights, as Network Rail and ORR requests aren't the same thing, and neither are capacity requests, and one doesn't automatically follow the other, but, as I said before, Open Access is little if any different from any operator wanting to set up a new service, but Open Access do usually have the initial problem in starting from zero and having to fit in amongst existing rights with nothing to 'piggyback' on, like extending a service.
Eurostar is confined to HS1 these days, unless they call Ashford again. Separate Network Code, their priority for inclusion is different to the Network Rail one, and easier in some ways. Nothing beats an international passenger train on HS1. International passenger on international passenger would be interesting.
HEX will depend on the Track Access Contract they have. They may have firm rights to every 15 mins and journey time protection. Most of that has gone away from others and it's purely quantum rights to run x trains between A and B.
Sometimes the all shacks has more rights to be there than the fast long distance.
Eurostar is confined to HS1 these days, unless they call Ashford again. Separate Network Code, their priority for inclusion is different to the Network Rail one, and easier in some ways. Nothing beats an international passenger train on HS1. International passenger on international passenger would be interesting.
HEX will depend on the Track Access Contract they have. They may have firm rights to every 15 mins and journey time protection. Most of that has gone away from others and it's purely quantum rights to run x trains between A and B.
Sometimes the all shacks has more rights to be there than the fast long distance.
It is understandable why the perception would be that OA end up ‘last on the graph, lowest priority’ as they are usually squeezing into an already busy timetable where all the prime slots are occupied by TOCs with firm rights. Once established with firm rights themselves, OA theoretically have an equal status but given each timetable is essentially an evolution of the previous iteration, they’re not going to make much in the way of improvements without there being a major overall recast (such as ECML ESG). It will be a case of keeping their eyes open for opportunities to make marginal improvements, perhaps as other services are tweaked.
If for example OA 1 manages to obtain a sub-optimal 1018 Kings Cross to Bradford path with initially contingent rights, even when they are solidified into firm rights the TOC A 1030 Kings Cross-Edinburgh is still in the way and the Part D rules pertaining to ‘flexing’ (decision criteria etc) are unlikely to justify shouldering the - in reality more important - TOC service out of the way in favour of the Bradford path.
Lumo is the interesting example because they also serve the Edinburgh market and are perhaps on more level ground in terms of decision criteria etc?
Grand Central do OK on the ECML with the paths they have. The issue they have is north of Doncaster on the Bradford service, and to a lesser extent north of York on the Sunderland service.
You'll notice that the long waits at Wakefield Kirkgate only seem to be on the services that don't stop at Pontefract Monkhill. My suspicion is that the paths here are like this because they have to fit the train through Heaton Lodge junction.
Grand Central do OK on the ECML with the paths they have. The issue they have is north of Doncaster on the Bradford service, and to a lesser extent north of York on the Sunderland service.
You'll notice that the long waits at Wakefield Kirkgate only seem to be on the services that don't stop at Pontefract Monkhill. My suspicion is that the paths here are like this because they have to fit the train through Heaton Lodge junction.
I’ll repeat, just so that no-one gets confused and I’ll explain (in a simplified way) how the charging works.
NR gets most of its income from Network Grant, straight from Government. It then levies marginal cost charges (as agreed by the ORR) on all operators. This leaves an annual funding gap.
So what the Government does is fund that annual gap through the former franchised TOCs. That gap is divided up amongst those TOCs and is the fixed track access payment. It is, in effect, a form of laundered subsidy to NR, which goes up and down each year. It is not a “real” charge.
When it comes to timetabling, there is a hierarchy of rights (see Part D of the Network Code, which is legally enforceable) but everyone who has “firm rights” should be treated the same. Those who have “contingent rights” come second and those who “aspire” to rights come third. Rights are awarded by (only) the ORR who “directs” NR to enter into a Track Access Contract or amendment thereto.
The more complicated your train service (in terms of lines used), the more problems you are going to have in gaining a clean path. Going through Leeds and out the other side is a known issue, especially if you have to then hit a path on the ECML.
Depends on how you define "aspire". Firm rights first, contingent OR expectation of rights is technically third and anything with no rights is fourth. Other things being equal an operator who has submitted an application for rights (expectation) but has not been awarded them carries same priority of inclusion as an operator with existing contingent rights. An operator who wants to join the party late, or who chooses not to exercise their rights, has no rights. Firm beats contingent, contingent beats none. Firm vs firm, contingent vs contingent and none vs none is decision criteria and Network Rail will decide. Network Code Part D para D4.2.2(d)(iv) is the source and D4.6.1 and D4.6.2 is the decision criteria.
The missing second priority for inclusion is firm right but due to expire.
I did say I was simplifying things, rather than get into the details of Part D. I also deliberately left out the decision criteria, again for simplicity. I also gave Part J a wide berth.
What I am intending to convey is that OA and DfT operators with firm rights get equal priority.
Grand Central trains typically take just over 90 mins between Kings Cross and Doncaster then almost another 90 to crawl between Doncaster and Bradford. This is not just down to slow line speeds - the working I caught on Saturday had a schedule wait of 11 mins at Wakefield Kirkgate. Other workings have built in delays elsewhere.
This problem has been there ever since GC started.
Are GC deliberately given suboptimal path allocations to protect LNER?
Is it not just because the ECML path has to fit in with a Transpennine path at Mirfield and then fit in with Calder Valley paths through Brighouse, Halifax and Bradford, and they won’t all line up.
Once the trains get to Mirfield there is nowhere else a train could wait as it’s a two track railway thereafter and they would be blocking the line, hence why they probably wait at Wakefield Kirkgate
Is it not just because the ECML path has to fit in with a Transpennine path at Mirfield and then fit in with Calder Valley paths through Brighouse, Halifax and Bradford, and they won’t all line up.
Once the trains get to Mirfield there is nowhere else a train could wait as it’s a two track railway thereafter and they would be blocking the line, hence why they probably wait at Wakefield Kirkgate
I did say I was simplifying things, rather than get into the details of Part D. I also deliberately left out the decision criteria, again for simplicity. I also gave Part J a wide berth.
What I am intending to convey is that OA and DfT operators with firm rights get equal priority.
It should do. In the southbound direction it’ll help as a station call at Mirfield won’t be blocking the main line and in the northbound direction it avoids the flat crossing.
Yeah this discussion topic is completely separate to any kind of regulation of traffic on the day, which has its own set of rules and principles. Although of course any deviation from the booked timetable plan has to be justifiable, and the booked timetable plan has to conform with the access rights and prioritisation hierarchy. The timetable plan assumes right-time running of course.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
