Grand Central Discussion

[Techniquest]

There were quite a few people on board off Sunderland on 17th January on the 1230 Sunderland to Kings Cross, not a huge number but enough to seem significant!

 

[spoony]

There were quite a few people on board off Sunderland on 17th January on the 1230 Sunderland to Kings Cross, not a huge number but enough to seem significant!

Good stuff, hopefully they are developing a decent customer base

 

[paul1609]

There were quite a few people on board off Sunderland on 17th January on the 1230 Sunderland to Kings Cross, not a huge number but enough to seem significant!

Problem is how many of these were through passengers to London? I still dont believe there is a significant market from the Durham Coast through to London and I reckon ORR will call a halt to these paths in 2011 on that basis.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Problem is how many of these were through passengers to London? I still dont believe there is a significant market from the Durham Coast through to London and I reckon ORR will call a halt to these paths in 2011 on that basis.

From my experience onboard, more and more passengers are doing exactly this, including myself, the numbers are significant. I love getting on Kings Cross and hearing fellow Mackem voices on the train - pretty large volumes of people are going all the way up to Sunderland. What exactly do you base your assertion on? Just curious, given your location, in Sussex.

 

[theblackwatch]

Problem is how many of these were through passengers to London? I still dont believe there is a significant market from the Durham Coast through to London and I reckon ORR will call a halt to these paths in 2011 on that basis.

The ORR has already stated that it is "minded to approve" firm rights for a fourth Grand Central service each way between Sunderland and London King’s Cross until May 2012 - see http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9430

Somehow, I can't impagine the ORR doing that if they planned to pull the plug on the other three paths in 2011!

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

Quite a lot of people want to go Durham Coast - London!! Hartlepool can be very busy both ways, as can Eaglescliffe

 

[whoshotjimmi]

...I reckon ORR will call a halt to these paths in 2011 on that basis.

Sorry my friend. As a number of posters have said before, a fourth service is not too far away PLUS three services in each direction per day has been proposed for approval on the London - Bradford Interchange route under the Grand Union banner. Something I am looking forward to as I will have more choice heading to London from West Yorkshire.

Looks like Grand Central are here to stay Paul.

 

[Techniquest]

It would be interesting to know passenger figures for Sunderland, Hartlepool and Eaglescliffe to London. I recall a couple of dozen (if not more) pages back in this thread Sir Clagalot reported that Eaglescliffe was getting rather busy in both directions with passengers to/from London in particular.

From Sunderland it may be a different story but in all fairness it would be the same with the daily Carmarthen to London Paddington and vice-versa, how many people would be getting on at Carmarthen, Pembrey and Burry Port and Llanelli for London? Not a huge amount I daresay, more so when the service originated at Milford Haven about 15 years ago. Same could be said for most of the off-peak services from Swansea, I find it hard to believe a HST could be filled to the majority with London passengers. Peak times, yes, but not on say the 1129 to the 1529. Lots of people on that route use the services locally (Swansea to Newport, Swansea to Bristol Parkway, Neath to Swindon, things like that as well as the more obvious Swansea to Cardiff and such like moves) and it's surprising how full the HSTs are beyond Bridgend towards London. Obviously the closer it gets to London the fuller they get, but there are still plenty of people using the services.

Point I'm trying to make is that not every service from outside the NSE area is going to be full of London passengers, it doesn't work like that. Nevertheless, GC seem to have a lot of loyal passengers keen to avoid NXEC!

 

[MCR247]

I think that instead of having GU, I'd just keep it as GC, and then you could use the stock more like:
Set 1
Sunderland-Kings Cross
Kings Cross- Bradford
etc..... if you get what I mean, like NXEC dont have trains confined to a certain rout like a 91 on Leeds all day (I dont think. Feel free to correct me)

 

[theblackwatch]

I think that instead of having GU, I'd just keep it as GC, and then you could use the stock more like:
Set 1
Sunderland-Kings Cross
Kings Cross- Bradford
etc..... if you get what I mean, like NXEC dont have trains confined to a certain rout like a 91 on Leeds all day (I dont think. Feel free to correct me)

I suspect the stock may well be used in the way you suggest. I can't see GC having a single dedicated 180, and GU a totally separate fleet, bearing in mind they have one parent company.

 

[MCR247]

I suspect the stock may well be used in the way you suggest. I can't see GC having a single dedicated 180, and GU a totally separate fleet, bearing in mind they have one parent company.

But if you have different names it will be confusing seeing a GU 180 on a GC service and a GC HST on a GU service!

 

[me123]

Why aren't they all just the same name, then? Thought it would be cheaper to share staff, trains, a name and so on...

 

[MCR247]

Why aren't they all just the same name, then? Thought it would be cheaper to share staff, trains, a name and so on...

Yeah Thats what I thought. Then trains wouldnt have to be stabled for long. Its like seperating VXC & VWC. Ended up a nightmare with which trains should go to which company, because an XC service could form a WC service in Virgin day! but back on topic.

 

[me123]

That situation obviously wouldn't arise, though, as these companies aren't franchised!

 

[paul1609]

It would be interesting to know passenger figures for Sunderland, Hartlepool and Eaglescliffe to London. I recall a couple of dozen (if not more) pages back in this thread Sir Clagalot reported that Eaglescliffe was getting rather busy in both directions with passengers to/from London in particular.

From Sunderland it may be a different story but in all fairness it would be the same with the daily Carmarthen to London Paddington and vice-versa, how many people would be getting on at Carmarthen, Pembrey and Burry Port and Llanelli for London? Not a huge amount I daresay, more so when the service originated at Milford Haven about 15 years ago. Same could be said for most of the off-peak services from Swansea, I find it hard to believe a HST could be filled to the majority with London passengers. Peak times, yes, but not on say the 1129 to the 1529. Lots of people on that route use the services locally (Swansea to Newport, Swansea to Bristol Parkway, Neath to Swindon, things like that as well as the more obvious Swansea to Cardiff and such like moves) and it's surprising how full the HSTs are beyond Bridgend towards London. Obviously the closer it gets to London the fuller they get, but there are still plenty of people using the services.

Point I'm trying to make is that not every service from outside the NSE area is going to be full of London passengers, it doesn't work like that. Nevertheless, GC seem to have a lot of loyal passengers keen to avoid NXEC!

All valid points but all the Grand Central paths are allocated on the grounds that they are providing a need not provided by other TOCs namely a direct service to London from stations not otherwise provided for. Come 2011/2 i would expect that the ECML franchise holder/ DFT to be providing hard evidence that GC is only viable because of the raid on York traffic. I believe that ticket sales at that point will prove that GC is not viable if it doesnt extract York traffic.

Whilst GC prices may be popular with passengers it is reducing income on the heavily subsidised ECML, ORR needs to balance that against the benefits it provides to users of Durham Coast stations.

I believe that the other open access operators provide a genuine service off the main line. I dont believe WSMR will survive as an independent operator since their is insufficent traffic I imagine it will eventually become part of Chiltern. Hull trains is secure. I reckon GC will be replaced by the ECML franchise operating 1 train per day via the Durham Coast to Newcastle.

 

[tbtc]

All valid points but all the Grand Central paths are allocated on the grounds that they are providing a need not provided by other TOCs namely a direct service to London from stations not otherwise provided for. Come 2011/2 i would expect that the ECML franchise holder/ DFT to be providing hard evidence that GC is only viable because of the raid on York traffic. I believe that ticket sales at that point will prove that GC is not viable if it doesnt extract York traffic.

Hull trains is secure

By the same logic, you could argue that Hull Trains is only making (sufficient) money because of the money made from Doncaster/ Grantham.

In fact, Hull Trains have even less justification (on those grounds) because (GNER/ ) NXEC already linked Hull to London, unlike Sunderland/ Durha, Coast/ Teesside which had no service to the capital (albeit Selby had no London link at the time IIRC).

 

[Metroland]

Neither am I entirely sure that it is 'reducing incoming on the ECML' - certainly not for NR, whose subsidy he is referring to and is very marginal given the traffic base (if any given its the biggest income generator of passengers and freight (through route for off flows) - several billion income overall plus premiums paid v the 72 million spent on maintenance, 171 million on renewals and less than 5 million spent on operations for NR in 2009) - more train paths lifts their income! Please see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ndix 2 variable usage charges (passenger).pdf

Moreover the 'subsidy' would be called investment if it was other modes (Please go and learn about CBA if you don't understand this point) the positive spin offs for the North East must out weigh any of it. Opening up markets tends to boost income for all operators, as NXEC's revenue is rising, there is no case to call.

Paul's assertion there is no/insufficient market in the North East is pure speculative assertion, based on nothing. He has been a critic of Grand Central from the word go, so expect nothing less.

Further Reading

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...Plans/2008/Route 8 - East Coast Main Line.pdf

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...t=\RUS Documents\Route Utilisation Strategies

 

[Pumbaa]

By the same logic, you could argue that Hull Trains is only making (sufficient) money because of the money made from Doncaster/ Grantham.

In fact, Hull Trains have even less justification (on those grounds) because (GNER/ ) NXEC already linked Hull to London, unlike Sunderland/ Durha, Coast/ Teesside which had no service to the capital (albeit Selby had no London link at the time IIRC).

And following on from the above point, fHT have just had the ORR ruling that they are inclined to decline their application for another path.

 

[Royston Vasey]

And following on from the above point, fHT have just had the ORR ruling that they are inclined to decline their application for another path.

Are you referring to the announcement on 29th Jan firming up the 6th and 7th but not granting the 8th path or something else?

Frankly 7 services a day (now with bigger trains) plus the NXEC daily service from Hull is twice what the Durham Coast has, and as mentioned HT gain revenue from a number of stations GC cannot between York and London.

Only my opinion, but I think GC are more deserving of a 4th path than HT are of an 8th path.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Could Pumbaa be referring to the FHT path access application to Harrogate which has been frowned upon? As far as I am aware, this is because NXEC are proposing to send their 2 hourly York service to Harrogate should they get it.

As for GC taking passengers at York, the number as a proportion of NXEC loadings at the same station must be quite low. And NXEC also have Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh to fill up their trains.

Also, just out of interest, do you include GC taking passengers away at York who had previously changed there following a connection from Middlesbrough etc as opposed to joining GC at Eaglescliffe etc?

 

[paul1609]

Neither am I entirely sure that it is 'reducing incoming on the ECML' - certainly not for NR, whose subsidy he is referring to and is very marginal given the traffic base (if any given its the biggest income generator of passengers and freight (through route for off flows) - several billion income overall plus premiums paid v the 72 million spent on maintenance, 171 million on renewals and less than 5 million spent on operations for NR in 2009) - more train paths lifts their income! Please see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ndix 2 variable usage charges (passenger).pdf

Moreover the 'subsidy' would be called investment if it was other modes (Please go and learn about CBA if you don't understand this point) the positive spin offs for the North East must out weigh any of it. Opening up markets tends to boost income for all operators, as NXEC's revenue is rising, there is no case to call.

Paul's assertion there is no/insufficient market in the North East is pure speculative assertion, based on nothing. He has been a critic of Grand Central from the word go, so expect nothing less.

Further Reading

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...Plans/2008/Route 8 - East Coast Main Line.pdf

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...t=\RUS Documents\Route Utilisation Strategies[/QUOTE

Yes my assertation is my opinion which I've stated from day one but unless you have access to the Rail Settlement Plans figures for ticket sales to the Durham Coast your counter opinion is equally speculative.

I have stated what i understand to be Grand Centrals business case for the paths to the ORR which is the case that ORR is obliged to consider when the paths are due for consideration in 2011/2.

Much of the information that you have provided in order to prove that you have a superior understanding of economics to myself will frankly be irrelevant to the ORRs decision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Neither am I entirely sure that it is 'reducing incoming on the ECML' - certainly not for NR, whose subsidy he is referring to and is very marginal given the traffic base (if any given its the biggest income generator of passengers and freight (through route for off flows) - several billion income overall plus premiums paid v the 72 million spent on maintenance, 171 million on renewals and less than 5 million spent on operations for NR in 2009) - more train paths lifts their income! Please see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ndix 2 variable usage charges (passenger).pdf

Moreover the 'subsidy' would be called investment if it was other modes (Please go and learn about CBA if you don't understand this point) the positive spin offs for the North East must out weigh any of it. Opening up markets tends to boost income for all operators, as NXEC's revenue is rising, there is no case to call.

Paul's assertion there is no/insufficient market in the North East is pure speculative assertion, based on nothing. He has been a critic of Grand Central from the word go, so expect nothing less.

Further Reading

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...Plans/2008/Route 8 - East Coast Main Line.pdf

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...t=\RUS Documents\Route Utilisation Strategies

Yes my assertation is my opinion which I've stated from day one but unless you have access to the Rail Settlement Plans figures for ticket sales to the Durham Coast your counter opinion is equally speculative.

I have stated what i understand to be Grand Centrals business case for the paths to the ORR which is the case that ORR is obliged to consider when the paths are due for consideration in 2011/2.

Much of the information that you have provided in order to prove that you have a superior understanding of economics to myself will frankly be irrelevant to the ORRs decision.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Yes my assertation is my opinion which I've stated from day one but unless you have access to the Rail Settlement Plans figures for ticket sales to the Durham Coast your counter opinion is equally speculative.

I have stated what i understand to be Grand Centrals business case for the paths to the ORR which is the case that ORR is obliged to consider when the paths are due for consideration in 2011/2.

Much of the information that you have provided in order to prove that you have a superior understanding of economics to myself will frankly be irrelevant to the ORRs decision.

I think this is a battle which could go on forever until we see accurate figures from both parties - something which I am sure will be made available in due course. However, let's look at it another way.

The railways are getting very crowded these days and we have already seen the WCML having to take drastic measures to improve track access. ECML is not yet operating at capacity but is coming closer. Would the ORR and DafT approve a service (or pre approve) on this route unless it provided a significant boost to the route?

 

[Royston Vasey]

Also, just out of interest, do you include GC taking passengers away at York who had previously changed there following a connection from Middlesbrough etc as opposed to joining GC at Eaglescliffe etc?

Good point that, never thought of that. The ticket flows can be analysed I guess, before and at various points since GC have been operating to find this out, though it is clouded by the fact that customers had no choice before GC. Volumes to London from Newcastle, Durham, Darlington and Middlesbrough (via York) and York may be affected, though not necessarily, by those choosing to go from Sunderland, Hartlepool, Eaglescliffe and the North Yorks stations and those against GC will use this as evidence that they are extracting. This isn't the case, I'd argue this is legitimate because they aren't replicating a service which was already existing. GNER and NXEC could have done this and did not.

I reckon the ONLY flow there is any justification for complaint is direct York-London only, but as you say, at 3 services a day this isn't that great, and bear in mind people may be boarding at Thirsk and Northallerton as a better option than driving to York and going from there.

Yes my assertation is my opinion which I've stated from day one but unless you have access to the Rail Settlement Plans figures for ticket sales to the Durham Coast your counter opinion is equally speculative.

Much of the information that you have provided in order to prove that you have a superior understanding of economics to myself will frankly be irrelevant to the ORRs decision.

But there are many who have first hand experience as qualitative reasoning for their arguments, like me. I haven't seen evidence you have any experience at all!

And I would hope the economic case is very much part of their decision...

 

[Metroland]

Much of the information that you have provided in order to prove that you have a superior understanding of economics to myself will frankly be irrelevant to the ORRs decision.

I never claimed I have a superior understanding, but I am quite capable of reading rail industry reports published when the service was looked into which lead me to conclude that your assertions, for the most part, are baseless. As the site's Cassandra, I further question your other evidence and motivations on many other issues, nothing more.

 

[paul1609]

Good point that, never thought of that. The ticket flows can be analysed I guess, before and at various points since GC have been operating to find this out, though it is clouded by the fact that customers had no choice before GC. Volumes to London from Newcastle, Durham, Darlington and Middlesbrough (via York) and York may be affected, though not necessarily, by those choosing to go from Sunderland, Hartlepool, Eaglescliffe and the North Yorks stations and those against GC will use this as evidence that they are extracting. This isn't the case, I'd argue this is legitimate because they aren't replicating a service which was already existing. GNER and NXEC could have done this and did not.

I reckon the ONLY flow there is any justification for complaint is direct York-London only, but as you say, at 3 services a day this isn't that great, and bear in mind people may be boarding at Thirsk and Northallerton as a better option than driving to York and going from there.



But there are many who have first hand experience as qualitative reasoning for their arguments, like me. I haven't seen evidence you have any experience at all!

And I would hope the economic case is very much part of their decision...

I have only ever touched on qualitative reasoning during my engineering studies with the OU.
I dont really understand why you would use that method in deciding a case for or against GC in 2011 when ticket sales will give you a more or less complete data.

 

[Metroland]

Much to simplistic. No transport scheme is assessed in that way because it would only assess a narrow range of benefits. The ORR, in deciding last time, commissioned a full cost benefit appraisal from Arup. However this was not the only reason they granted the paths.

'To this end we commissioned consultants, Arup, to undertake an economic cost benefit appraisal. Arup’s economic appraisal used standard industry procedures (for example following DfT/SRA appraisal guidance) and utilised the most relevant 'state of the art' demand forecasting models, namely MOIRA and Planet Strategic Model (PSM). The appraisal considered the passenger and other benefits that flow directly from an improvement in rail services including fare revenues, reductions in journey time, improvements in service quality (for example reductions in crowding) and non-user benefits from reductions in road congestion from a shift of traffic from road to rail. The appraisal did not incorporate wider economic benefits such as increased employment in regeneration areas, or dynamic effects (for example, the effects of competition).'

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ECML_reasons_doc.pdf

 

[BOSCH]

After reading all of the above,all I can say is thank fcuk Im only a driver !!!!

 

[spoony]

After reading all of the above,all I can say is thank fcuk Im only a driver !!!!

Haway, do you not count the number of passengers waiting on the platform:roll:

 

[Royston Vasey]

I have only ever touched on qualitative reasoning during my engineering studies with the OU.
I dont really understand why you would use that method in deciding a case for or against GC in 2011 when ticket sales will give you a more or less complete data.

I wasn't referring to any particular theoretical approach - perhaps I accidentally used words which have been adopted by academics. I was just saying that whether or not quantitative (numerical) data, qualitative data i.e. non-numerical evidence has validity too, ie. the feelings, convenience and satisfaction of passengers. My point was the passenger flows won't in this case show the full picture because they don't account for how much passengers feel inconvenienced by having to get to Station A to start their journey rather than Station B which may be more local, or how far they have come to the station they board at, or which service they prefer.

For example I bet Newcastle, Durham and Darlington have slightly lower flow Southbound at around 7am/1pm/6pm because of the GC service down the coast, but only because people don't have to drive or use Metro for half an hour or more to get to a London train any more. That isn't extraction, it's providing choice.

 

[theblackwatch]

What was with the dodgy coaching stock formations today? One set was formed of three First Class coaches and a buffet car, that was it!

Will Marcroft ever release the 'missing three'?