Grand Central shenanigans

[harz99]

Now I know open access operators are looked down upon here, but GC really are taking the mick.

Yesterday Tuesday 26th May, the 1627 Bradford departure from King's Cross was terminated at Doncaster and the passengers left to find their way back to the West Riding route destinations. Then the unit involved ran ECS up to York to form the working of the 1700 King's Cross to Sunderland starting at York, which itself had been cancelled as a result of the inbound working failing at Grantham.

End result being, hacked off pax for stations beyond Doncaster to Bradford on the 1627 departure from King's Cross , and more hacked off pax from the 1700 departure from King's Cross to York and stations to Sunderland who had no way of reaching York in time.

Seemingly this was done to ensure that a unit was available for this morning's services from Sunderland to London, but really is this fair or sensible?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Seemingly this was done to ensure that a unit was available for this morning's services from Sunderland to London, but really is this fair or sensible?

So, taking this comment at face value, can I assume that your suggested course of action would have been to (pre-)cancel this morning’s service from Sunderland.

We seem to have quite a few threads about ‘service recovery’ in the general sense. On any tightly-resourced system there have to be hard choices.

 

[harz99]

Yes, there are 3 workings from Sunderland in the morning and it is not unusual for the last one to be cancelled between Sunderland and York.

Or, instead of that cancel the 1625 Bradford throughout from King's Cross. and run the unit as the 1700 Kings Cross to Sunderland swapping crews at Grantham en route (they had stabled the failure there where it remained until today).

 

[greatkingrat]

Just to note that assuming ticket acceptance was in place, any customers for Bradford , could go via LNER to Leeds and get to Bradford earlier than the Grand Central would have done.

 

[Sealink]

Seemingly this was done to ensure that a unit was available for this morning's services from Sunderland to London, but really is this fair or sensible?

It feels like the right decision. Cancelling the first trains of the day in what is a limited timetable would, I think be more disruptive.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Lots of options from Doncaster to Pontefact/Wakefield/Bradford etc and lots of alternative options from London to York.

Assuming ticket acceptance in place and some notice given, very pragmatic use of resource. It manages not to cancel one or two trains entirely that day, or two trains entirely the next day.

 

[800001]

Now I know open access operators are looked down upon here, but GC really are taking the mick.

Yesterday Tuesday 26th May, the 1627 Bradford departure from King's Cross was terminated at Doncaster and the passengers left to find their way back to the West Riding route destinations. Then the unit involved ran ECS up to York to form the working of the 1700 King's Cross to Sunderland starting at York, which itself had been cancelled as a result of the inbound working failing at Grantham.

End result being, hacked off pax for stations beyond Doncaster to Bradford on the 1627 departure from King's Cross , and more hacked off pax from the 1700 departure from King's Cross to York and stations to Sunderland who had no way of reaching York in time.

Seemingly this was done to ensure that a unit was available for this morning's services from Sunderland to London, but really is this fair or sensible?

What communication was made on board the trains by the guards reference onwards ticket Acceptance and alternative transport arrangements?

Normally when GC do this, they have agree acceptance with LNER and Northern for customers to use there services.

For customers travelling from London it is normally on 2-3 LNER services to spread the customers.

And for the service terminating at Doncaster onwards connections with Northern.

 

[sh24]

The key thing here - ticket acceptance. Was that in place? If so, it's annoying for passengers but not a huge deal. If passengers were truly abandoned without onward options that changes this significantly.

 

[185143]

The key thing here - ticket acceptance. Was that in place? If so, it's annoying for passengers but not a huge deal. If passengers were truly abandoned without onward options that changes this significantly.

It's not uncommon for LNER to refuse acceptance and/or GC to fail to organise it.

So it's far from guaranteed there was acceptance.

 

[800001]

The key thing here - ticket acceptance. Was that in place? If so, it's annoying for passengers but not a huge deal. If passengers were truly abandoned without onward options that changes this significantly.

This is another half post. Rant about the issue but does not give a full story of what actually happened to the customers on the day.

 

[harz99]

This is another half post. Rant about the issue but does not give a full story of what actually happened to the customers on the day.

Nobody's ranting about anything, I wasn't on the trains involved, however there was zero evidence I could find online or social media of any ticket acceptance being arranged at all, and in my own experience when GC train failures have occurred it has been buy another ticket and claim your original fare back, or wait for the next available GC service. As has already been said LNER don't always look favourably on such requests except when disruption is widespread and affecting all services.

 

[800001]

Nobody's ranting about anything, I wasn't on the trains involved, however there was zero evidence I could find online or social media of any ticket acceptance being arranged at all, and in my own experience when GC train failures have occurred it has been buy another ticket and claim your original fare back, or wait for the next available GC service. As has already been said LNER don't always look favourably on such requests except when disruption is widespread and affecting all services.

Maybe rant was the wrong word, I apologise for that.

But point still stands that it's a post with only half a story.

They may of been ticket acceptance and was communicated to all customers and stations on route, maybe there wasn't.

I've worked plenty of shifts where GC, Northern and LNER all work together to get customers moving.

The times it is usually declined is when LNER services are exceptionally busy themselves .

 

[Towers]

Nobody's ranting about anything, I wasn't on the trains involved, however there was zero evidence I could find online or social media of any ticket acceptance being arranged at all, and in my own experience when GC train failures have occurred it has been buy another ticket and claim your original fare back, or wait for the next available GC service. As has already been said LNER don't always look favourably on such requests except when disruption is widespread and affecting all services.

The ‘legal’ status of that situation has been debated here a number of times I believe?

 

[harz99]

So, taking this comment at face value, can I assume that your suggested course of action would have been to (pre-)cancel this morning’s service from Sunderland.

We seem to have quite a few threads about ‘service recovery’ in the general sense. On any tightly-resourced system there have to be hard choices.

Maybe rant was the wrong word, I apologise for that.

But point still stands that it's a post with only half a story.

They may of been ticket acceptance and was communicated to all customers and stations on route, maybe there wasn't.

I've worked plenty of shifts where GC, Northern and LNER all work together to get customers moving.

The times it is usually declined is when LNER services are exceptionally busy themselves .

Whether there was ticket acceptance or not would've been of little use to any passengers for the 1700 Kings Cross to Sunderland, unless they were at the station well before 1630 and already in the knowledge they could travel on one of the two LNER services to York and beyond at around that time.

The next available service, the LNER 1703 departure arrived at York at 1905 some 13 minutes or so after the reinstated GC Sunderland service departed, not much of a delay for anybody just travelling to York although I don't imagine many of them would have found a seat very easily.

However, for those travelling beyond York to any of the GC served stations to Sunderland no such luck...there should have been a Transpennine Manchester to Redcar service at 1936, however this had a late start from Manchester and then suffered further delays en route and ultimately didn't run beyond York...effectively the choice would have been wait until the last GC service to Sunderland arrived at York for the 2124 departure, wait for either of the next Transpennine service at 2039 or the LNER Middlesbrough service at 2055, neither of which departed York before 2110, as far as Thornaby and hope to get a connecting Northern service after that.

All that assuming the passengers are regular travellers and are able to access the information they need.

I guess this could now be called a rant, so by way of explanation...the reason I follow these occurrences is because I use the route to travel between Hartlepool and either York or King's Cross quite regularly, and I have some experience of getting caught up in GC failures, set changeovers en route, and failures with lack of information on the ground. I take note of which 180 units are currently giving issues, and occasionally change my plans to actively avoid certain ones.

 

[357]

From publicly accessible information, ticket acceptance with Northern and TPE, and road transport provided from Doncaster to Pontefract...

 

[harz99]

@357 presumably that's for the Bradford service, did you find any for the Sunderland service for the intending passengers from King's Cross?

 

[800001]

Whether there was ticket acceptance or not would've been of little use to any passengers for the 1700 Kings Cross to Sunderland, unless they were at the station well before 1630 and already in the knowledge they could travel on one of the two LNER services to York and beyond at around that time.

The next available service, the LNER 1703 departure arrived at York at 1905 some 13 minutes or so after the reinstated GC Sunderland service departed, not much of a delay for anybody just travelling to York although I don't imagine many of them would have found a seat very easily.

However, for those travelling beyond York to any of the GC served stations to Sunderland no such luck...there should have been a Transpennine Manchester to Redcar service at 1936, however this had a late start from Manchester and then suffered further delays en route and ultimately didn't run beyond York...effectively the choice would have been wait until the last GC service to Sunderland arrived at York for the 2124 departure, wait for either of the next Transpennine service at 2039 or the LNER Middlesbrough service at 2055, neither of which departed York before 2110, as far as Thornaby and hope to get a connecting Northern service after that.

All that assuming the passengers are regular travellers and are able to access the information they need.

I guess this could now be called a rant, so by way of explanation...the reason I follow these occurrences is because I use the route to travel between Hartlepool and either York or King's Cross quite regularly, and I have some experience of getting caught up in GC failures, set changeovers en route, and failures with lack of information on the ground. I take note of which 180 units are currently giving issues, and occasionally change my plans to actively avoid certain ones.

In cases where there is no TPE from York, standard procedure for passengers north of York would be LNER for Northallerton, and also for any customers for Hartlepool, Eaglescliffe change at Darlington for Northern or bus replacement, and Sunderland stay on LNER to Newcastle and use metro.