Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

[JonathanH]

Why is the rail regular allowed to ignore applications and not determine within a reasonable timescale.

In the intervening time, there have been comments from the incumbent operators and Network Rail, plus right of reply from the applicant. That process all seems to take time, which isn't strictly in the rail regulators gift.

 

[zwk500]

I accept Ignore is not really right word, but couldn't think of a single word that effectively means treat with very low priority, anything but expedite

This is an incredibly complex bid crossing 4 of the 5 Network Rail Regions (only Scotland isn't impacted), and impacting 7 of the 14 Network Rail Routes directly (North & East, East Coast, East Midlands, Central, Western, Wessex, and Sussex). West Coast South route may also be impacted depending on the knock-on effects of changes at Birmingham New Street.

The service pattern affects XC, LNER, TPE, Northern, EMR, Avanti, LNR, WMR, Chiltern, GWR, SWR, and GTR. Not to mention all the FOCs.

The list of calling points on GC's website is like a tick sheet for the most congested areas of the rail network. The operational and economic issues that will inevitably be raised by such a bid are no trifle. It will take a lot of time (including commissioning independent reports on both economics and operations) to appraise the merits of the bid against the problems raised by objectors.

I think that to suggest the ORR shouldn't have taken it's time is wildly irresponsible towards passengers, as the potential for these services to detonate performance in several areas of the country, even at 5tpd, is very high.

 

[Snow1964]

I think that to suggest the ORR shouldn't have taken it's time is wildly irresponsible towards passengers, as the potential for these services to detonate performance in several areas of the country, even at 5tpd, is very high.

I didn't say they shouldn't look at it thoroughly, I said taking over a year is not reasonable.

I agree checking and getting reports is reasonable, but let's say 2 months to identify the queries and write out to interested parties, 2-3 months for a report getting answers, 1 month to summarise answers, Perhaps an extra month to get a get more details of a point that needed more clarity, 2 months to appraise and sign off. Thats nearer 8-9 months, not over a year.

Ultimately it's a yes/no decision, not some multi-year academic theory affecting mankind

 

[zwk500]

I didn't say they shouldn't look at it thoroughly, I said taking over a year is not reasonable.

I agree checking and getting reports is reasonable, but let's say 2 months to identify the queries and write out to interested parties, 2-3 months for a report getting answers, 1 month to summarise answers, Perhaps an extra month to get a get more details of a point that needed more clarity, 2 months to appraise and sign off. Thats nearer 8-9 months, not over a year.

Ultimately it's a yes/no decision, not some multi-year academic theory affecting mankind

An extra month to commission a national level economic demand model?

For comparison, Virgin Trains Europe applied for access to Temple Mills International on 23rd October 2024. The ORR published it's decision on 30th October 2025. Evolyn had actually applied on the 23rd August 2024.

 

[Zomboid]

It's a very complicated question. If you want a quick answer then the only one you'll get is "no", because it will take a lot of work to get to a point where "yes" is even a possibility.

 

[Driver068]

GC have currently 3 applications in to the ORR…

1. Extra Services York to KGX and Wakefield services

2. Cleethorpes to Doncaster

3. Newcastle to Brighton

My understanding is that the ORR are currently looking into all 3 however they are being prioritised due to the complexity. I’m led to believe we will hear first of point 2 imminently then the focus will be more on point 3

 

[357]

I’m led to believe we will hear first of point 2 imminently

I have heard the same... Interesting times ahead.

 

[JonathanH]

It's a very complicated question. If you want a quick answer then the only one you'll get is "no", because it will take a lot of work to get to a point where "yes" is even a possibility.

It seems fairly clear from the outside, and the published responses from the industry, that the answer to the Newcastle to Brighton service should be no, but presumably the time taken is due process for making sure that a "no" decision is absolutely watertight against any potential legal challenge.

 

[MotCO]

I assume there is a 'submission fee' for each application to defray the cost of considering them. In which case, in exchange for a fee, is there not an indicative timeframe in which the application is considered?

 

[The Ham]

It seems fairly clear from the outside, and the published responses from the industry, that the answer to the Newcastle to Brighton service should be no, but presumably the time taken is due process for making sure that a "no" decision is absolutely watertight against any potential legal challenge.

The to Brighton bit, I agree with you.

However, if you look at the likely costs for GBR for running "XC" services in those paths vs letting the OAO run those paths and use the extra rolling stock for extra capacity for "XC" it becomes less clear cut and may actually be a better business decision to let a competitor provide those services.

That's because, the units which otherwise would have needed a driver to operate wouldn't as they would be paired with other units and so as long as doing so generated broadly similar numbers of passengers and more importantly income, then it might mean a better financial position than trying to stretch the fleet to do it in house.

 

[Snow1964]

The to Brighton bit, I agree with you.

However, if you look at the likely costs for GBR for running "XC" services in those paths vs letting the OAO run those paths and use the extra rolling stock for extra capacity for "XC" it becomes less clear cut and may actually be a better business decision to let a competitor provide those services.

That's because, the units which otherwise would have needed a driver to operate wouldn't as they would be paired with other units and so as long as doing so generated broadly similar numbers of passengers and more importantly income, then it might mean a better financial position than trying to stretch the fleet to do it in house.

You have summarised a point, a lot of people have made, if XC were running long trains at regular frequency, then revenue extraction and congestion factors are important.

If however they are unable to fully service their core with long regular trains, then allowing services that continue to the margins to be operated by someone else, so XC can better concentrate its resources to fully achieve its core function, should be dominant factor in the decision.

Of course can only really decide if XC deliver or don't by looking at their stats. so these are latest XC performance figures to see if they are delivering:

Trains within 3 minutes of time 71.0%. (29% fail)
Trains arriving within 15 minutes 93.7% (6.3% fail)
Cancellations 7.1%
Short formations 3.9%
Proportion of trains canx by XC 3.8% (was over 10% three periods earlier)

Key Business Performance Indicators | CrossCountry Trains

Discover CrossCountry's train performance, including delays and cancellation rates, passenger satisfaction, and complaints.

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

With such a feeble performance by incumbent, why would ORR want to say a new entrant is not in passengers interest

 

[Zomboid]

such a feeble performance by incumbent, why would ORR want to say a new entrant is not in passengers interest

Alternatively, if XC can only manage mediocre performance, why would the regulator want to make one of their core routes more congested (and with those paragons of reliability, the class 180)?

And that is what they will be weighing up...

 

[The Planner]

You have summarised a point, a lot of people have made, if XC were running long trains at regular frequency, then revenue extraction and congestion factors are important.

If however they are unable to fully service their core with long regular trains, then allowing services that continue to the margins to be operated by someone else, so XC can better concentrate its resources to fully achieve its core function, should be dominant factor in the decision.

Of course can only really decide if XC deliver or don't by looking at their stats. so these are latest XC performance figures to see if they are delivering:

Trains within 3 minutes of time 71.0%. (29% fail)
Trains arriving within 15 minutes 93.7% (6.3% fail)
Cancellations 7.1%
Short formations 3.9%
Proportion of trains canx by XC 3.8% (was over 10% three periods earlier)

Key Business Performance Indicators | CrossCountry Trains

Discover CrossCountry's train performance, including delays and cancellation rates, passenger satisfaction, and complaints.

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

With such a feeble performance by incumbent, why would ORR want to say a new entrant is not in passengers interest

Why would anyone elses performance be better on identical routes?

 

[ainsworth74]

Why would anyone elses performance be better on identical routes?

Because the issues with XC are entirely down to failings if management and staff and have nothing to do with congested infrastructure at multiple points on their extremely long routes, a failure in the early 2000s to properly specify trains with sufficient capacity for demand then let alone twenty years hence, and an almost pathologic reluctance of Government of any stripe to recognize that this collection of secondary routes are vital to the economic and social life of the country and so new rolling stock and infrastructure upgrades are desperately needed.

So, as is clear, because it is entirely due to management and staff if you got another operator in place they'd been able to deliver a much better service. Simples!

 

[Snow1964]

Why would anyone elses performance be better on identical routes?

Different management focus, and different staff

Its not about doing sort of ok and accepting that as the norm,
Instead it's about the focus on tackling every problem to give quality.

 

[The Planner]

Disagree. I doubt GC would be significantly better. Smaller fleet, less staff etc. LUMO will be the same on the WCML, if anything happens on the day, they are cancelling.

 

[357]

Disagree. I doubt GC would be significantly better. Smaller fleet, less staff etc. LUMO will be the same on the WCML, if anything happens on the day, they are cancelling.

Another side to it on the ECML is that we see Lumo and GC making the effort to run trains horrifically late after disruption rather than bin it, because the crew are going home and the unit is needed the following day.

 

[The Planner]

Another side to it on the ECML is that we see Lumo and GC making the effort to run trains horrifically late after disruption rather than bin it, because the crew are going home and the unit is needed the following day.

Which is fair enough, but that takes you full circle back to performance.

 

[The Ham]

Alternatively, if XC can only manage mediocre performance, why would the regulator want to make one of their core routes more congested (and with those paragons of reliability, the class 180)?

And that is what they will be weighing up...

As I understand it, the choice is XC run the paths or the OAO runs the same paths.

As such there are no extra services and so no change to the congestion.

I agree that there's a risk with using the 180's which may result cancellations.

However, XC could be the Mitigation here, in that if they have a pair of units in the path after the OAO path they could provide the same total capacity as they would have had (although at a slightly lower cost and maybe without the second unit having to go as far north as Newcastle - maybe York and leave LNER to pick up the fallout, or maybe even Leed - to allow extra capacity elsewhere).

 

[NCT]

The travel time between Reading and Gatwick Airport shown on the following proposed timetable varies between 85 minutes and 97 minutes.

OK, so so of the half a dozen services Grand Central has applied for in each direction, it seems only a small handful are in the paths Cross Country are restoring in May.

Have I imagined it, or have XC services been taken out since they were initially uploaded a while ago?

 

[Snow1964]

I agree that there's a risk with using the 180's which may result cancellations.

I wouldn't worry about cancellations, its not like XC never has any.

Periods 1-13 (April 2025 - March 2026) for XC
7.5%, 5.5%, 8.7%, 10.7%, 5.9%, 6.9%, 5.4%, 6.2%, 10.7%, 13.1%, 7.7%, 5.4%, 7.1%

So in last year, XC always cancelled at least 1 in 19 trains, and sometimes over 1 in 8. If they can't manage current timetable, then I don't have much faith in the adding/restoring extra services, which makes running all their services harder.

Key Business Performance Indicators | CrossCountry Trains

Discover CrossCountry's train performance, including delays and cancellation rates, passenger satisfaction, and complaints.

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

 

[The Planner]

I wouldn't worry about cancellations, its not like XC never has any.

Periods 1-13 (April 2025 - March 2026) for XC
7.5%, 5.5%, 8.7%, 10.7%, 5.9%, 6.9%, 5.4%, 6.2%, 10.7%, 13.1%, 7.7%, 5.4%, 7.1%

So in last year, XC always cancelled at least 1 in 19 trains, and sometimes over 1 in 8. If they can't manage current timetable, then I don't have much faith in the adding/restoring extra services, which makes running all their services harder.

Key Business Performance Indicators | CrossCountry Trains

Discover CrossCountry's train performance, including delays and cancellation rates, passenger satisfaction, and complaints.

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

I would be interested to see those figures split out by day. Shame they don't do that as its clearly Sunday that skews those numbers.

 

[Zomboid]

There's also the issue of why they cancelled, and whether those issues are exclusive to XC. I don't know the answer there, but presumably whoever is making the decision would.

 

[Snow1964]

There's also the issue of why they cancelled, and whether those issues are exclusive to XC. I don't know the answer there, but presumably whoever is making the decision would.

The link has another set of figures (but have to scroll long way down, near the end), of cancellations caused by XC (rather than all cancellations from everything from bad weather, infrastructure, other operators etc)

In last year not got below 3.2% and been as high as 10.7%

 

[Bald Rick]

I assume there is a 'submission fee' for each application to defray the cost of considering them. In which case, in exchange for a fee, is there not an indicative timeframe in which the application is considered?

There is not a fee.

I would be interested to see those figures split out by day. Shame they don't do that as its clearly Sunday that skews those numbers.

Sundays and to a much lesser extent Saturdays are the problem

 

[Snow1964]

Sundays and to a much lesser extent Saturdays are the problem

Which is a strong argument for an alternative operator, if main one has historic problems staffing a service 7 days a week, and seems unable to sort it

 

[The Planner]

Which is a strong argument for an alternative operator, if main one has historic problems staffing a service 7 days a week, and seems unable to sort it

It isn't.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which is a strong argument for an alternative operator, if main one has historic problems staffing a service 7 days a week, and seems unable to sort it

Why do you assume an alternative operator wouldn't have the same issue?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why would anyone elses performance be better on identical routes?

Because they’re not run by a Managing Director who learned all she knew about the railway by mangling the Royal Mail before going off to run an Amazon prison fulfilment centre?

If XC can’t or won’t operate those paths, they should be given to someone who will.

 

[Snow1964]

Why do you assume an alternative operator wouldn't have the same issue?

Because a new operator wouldn't be so daft as take on a 7 day a week contract and only employ enough staff so that it is relying on volunteers (voluntary overtime) to fulfil the full basic schedule.

Being new, rather than inheriting staff means not TUPE which allows correct terms and conditions rather than some 19th century approach where poorly paid staff were desperate for overtime money which no longer works.