News from GrandCentral

[yorkie]

PRESS RELEASE
13 March 2007


New funding package secured

Grand Central has taken a major step towards the launch of its high speed passenger train services between London King’s Cross and Sunderland later this year. A new funding package has been secured to ensure the Company’s future development.

The Board of Grand Central has been strengthened by the new investment team, with the addition of Giles Fearnley as Chairman, Bob Howells as Vice-Chairman and the appointment of two new directors, Philip Moody and Phil Gartside.

All existing Grand Central employees, including Managing Director Ian Yeowart and Operations Director Sean English, will remain with the Company.

Grand Central has already recruited the key personnel required for the launch of its services later this year, with 11 drivers currently undergoing an intensive training programme led by Robin Hicks, Driver Standards Manager, and the remaining on-train staff joining the company later this month.

Ian Yeowart, Managing Director of Grand Central states:

“We are delighted to have secured our continued independence and the management expertise and financial resources that Giles, Bob and their team bring to us. This agreement ensures Grand Central now has the necessary resources to deliver its long term vision.

“The new team has a formidable track record in successfully developing rail businesses and we very much look forward to working with them. I would also like to thank Fraser Eagle for the invaluable support it has given to Grand Central over the past two years.”

Giles Fearnley, Chairman of Grand Central, adds:

“Ian has shown remarkable tenacity in developing the Grand Central project and in overcoming the many obstacles and challenges he has faced in securing a Track Access Contract. We see great potential for developing Grand Central into a major UK train operating company.”



In June 2006, Fraser Eagle announced that it had received a number of approaches from parties interested in acquiring Grand Central, and was evaluating a potential sale.

Kevin Dean, Managing Director of Fraser Eagle comments:

“A great deal of effort and resource has been invested in developing Grand Central to a stage where it is ready to begin services, and we are extremely proud of what has been achieved.”

Grand Central will begin operating three daily services between Sunderland and London later this year, and is seeking to run a fourth service - and has already made a timetable request to Network Rail.

In addition Grand Central has long standing plans to operate direct trains between London and Bradford via Halifax. Detailed negotiations are currently taking place with Network Rail on timetabling issues.

Ian Yeowart, Managing Director of Grand Central states:

“Network Rail has worked extremely hard to provide Leeds with its regular half hourly service, and we are pleased those services are to commence in May. It is now time to concentrate on improvements to the areas we seek to serve – and we have no doubt that the current East Coast Route Utilisation Study, allied to the professional work being undertaken by train planners, will reveal the capacity needed to make these services become a reality in the very near future.”

 

[5872]

So theres a new TOPS thing around GC? If so this remindes me about someone suggesting 442s might go there with 67s ?:???: :???: :???:

 

[Coxster]

If so this remindes me about someone suggesting 442s might go there with 67s ?:???: :???: :???:

As has been said many times before, Grand Central will be using HSTs.

 

[5872]

As has been said many times before, Grand Central will be using HSTs.

Where from Virgins old ones? there still in store!

 

[Tom]

They're using power cars that were stored, and ex LHCS Mk3s.

 

[Kris]

Wrexham & Shropshire

Wrexham & Shropshire today announced a set-back in its plans to provide direct train
services between Wrexham and Shropshire stations to London. Originally planned for
this summer the company (Wrexham & Shropshire) has been obliged to reconsider its
plans as a result of the consultation undertaken by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)
following its formal application submitted on 1 December 2006.
Wrexham & Shropshire has revised its plans following an objection to its application
lodged by West Coast Trains, the company that operates Inter-City services between
the West Midlands and London's Euston station. The ORR informed Wrexham &
Shropshire that West Coast Trains enjoys a “non- compete” protection clause in its
Track Access Agreement with Network Rail that affects Wolverhampton. Without West
Coast Trains' agreement, the ORR has informed Wrexham & Shropshire that it has no
powers to alter the situation and that it would have to reject its application.
As a consequence, Wrexham & Shropshire informed the ORR that it would like to
strengthen its proposal by stopping additional trains at Tame Bridge Parkway. This
station is well connected, with a substantial car park and good bus services, and lies at
the centre of a large urban population within the West Midlands that is currently poorly
served by direct services to the capital. On the borders of the three metropolitan
boroughs of Walsall, Wolverhampton and Sandwell, the new Tame Bridge stop will be
especially beneficial to Walsall, the only borough in the whole West Midlands
conurbation without a direct service to London.
Wrexham & Shropshire would continue to call its trains at Wolverhampton so that
passengers from Wrexham and Shropshire could change into the wider rail network.
However, London bound passengers from Wolverhampton would not be able to join the
trains for as long as the current protection continues with West Coast Trains. This “noncompete”
protection currently expires in 2012.
Unfortunately, the ORR has advised Wrexham & Shropshire that it is unable to consider
this new proposal as part of the original application and that a new round of
consultation is inevitable. Wrexham & Shropshire has therefore decided to submit a new
application. However, as a result of the ORR process, the company is now unlikely to be
able to implement services until around December 2007.

 

[westcoaster]

another reason why i dont like virgin wc ,

 

[Humberside]

Giles Fearnely was an owner of bus company Blazefield and stil works for them now that they are owned by Transdev. If Grand Central is anything like Blazefield, Grand Central will end up as a quality operation. Blazefield are the people who own Harrogate and District, Yorkshire Coastliner, Keighley and District, Burnley and Pendle and Lancashire United

I belive Blazefield also had some involvement in Prism Rail - anyone confirm?

Shame about WSMR's setback

 

[gordonthemoron]

So there is non-compete for Virgin but not for GNER?

 

[Tom]

Part of the West Coast upgrade project terms & conditions.

 

[Dennis]

Giles Fearnely was an owner of bus company Blazefield and stil works for them now that they are owned by Transdev. If Grand Central is anything like Blazefield, Grand Central will end up as a quality operation. Blazefield are the people who own Harrogate and District, Yorkshire Coastliner, Keighley and District, Burnley and Pendle and Lancashire United

I belive Blazefield also had some involvement in Prism Rail - anyone confirm?

Shame about WSMR's setback

Not sure about Blazefields involvement with Prism Rail but, IIRC, Fearnley was a top man with Prism, possibly chief exec. What a success their franchises were.

 

[theblackwatch]

Yes he was a 'big cheese' in Prism Rail as well as running Blazefield - must've been about 10 years back, unfortunately the memory is a bit hazy about it, but I think Blazefield was a major shareholder in Prism - I'm happy to be corrected though! I went to a talk by him to the local transport society in the 90s, and I came away with the impression he knew what he was on about. Certainy the bus services around Harrogate have done well in recent years, bucking the trend of decline around the country.

 

[yorkie]

So there is non-compete for Virgin but not for GNER?

There was, but ORR ruled it was illegal. However, ORR dare not rule against Virgin because the Government are extremely afraid of Virgin. (If you're wondering why, PUG2 is your answer).

Anyway there's some more here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2355980.ece

Oh, and the refurbishment doesn't include replacing the Valentas. So, assuming GC do cheap singles, I think I'll be making quite a few trips on that 0850ish train out of York and a GNER HST back (16:50 is too early).

GC have applied for 1 more path in each direction, I assume it will include an evening service from King's Cross - I certainly hope so anyway!

 

[Max]

GC have applied for 1 more path in each direction, I assume it will include an evening service from King's Cross - I certainly hope so anyway!

Is this competing with Hull Trains' new seventh path, or is it available now due to line upgrades?

 

[theblackwatch]

So theres a new TOPS thing around GC? If so this remindes me about someone suggesting 442s might go there with 67s ?:???: :???: :???:

Not with Grand Central, but Hull Trains is looking at the possibility of using a 442 with a 67 - see the new Rail Express mag, and it's not an April Fools joke! Should get a few people on here frothing if the proposal actually comes off. :grin:

 

[Tom]

*flails like he doesn't mean it*

Doubt it would work too well, myself!

 

[ChrisCooper]

They are seriously considering using 442s and 67s? Wow, the railways are stranger than I thought. I presume this would be purely hauled stock, since a 67 would need a lot of modification to work with the SR multiple working system, and when propelling would be limited to 100mph unless the leading vehicle was not in passenger use (modern stock like 22Xs, 180s and 390s get past that rule due to extra crashworthyness, not that any crashworthyness is going to save you at those sorts of speeds, but I can't see the HSE allowing it for older stock, particularly when combined with the extra risk of push pull working). If they are going to run at 100mph, there are plenty of other options that would be easier (Mk3s and a DBSO for a start, or of cource Turbostars). Anyway, it's not like there is a shortage of Mk3s and DVTs.

 

[Darandio]

Is the official start for Grand Central still late May (i think)? Looking forward to popping to Eaglescliffe for some pics and also Northallerton to see some Valentas screaming away.

 

[Kris]

I don't know much about this myself - never having driven locos, but I was told that 67's are blue star compatible (like 33's & 73's) and as such would be able to attach and have through control.

 

[ChrisCooper]

67s use AAR, Association of American Railroads multiple control. I presume it might should possible to adapt either the 442 or the 67 to work together (the 422 would be best, since they wouldn't be restricted by which 67s could be used). As I said though, unless the leading coach of the 442 was out of passenger use, speed would be restricted to 100mph. The only advantage a 442 would give over Mk3s and a DVT is that in the latter, the DVT is a waste of space, and very heavy (they weight about twice as much as a normal Mk3), but if one coach of the 442 is going to be out of use, or it will be restricted to 100mph, there is no advantage.

 

[class 313]

Where from Virgins old ones? there still in store!

Some went into store, some went to MML, and now fGW...

The power cars are already being ready for GC.

Not with Grand Central, but Hull Trains is looking at the possibility of using a 442 with a 67 - see the new Rail Express mag, and it's not an April Fools joke! Should get a few people on here frothing if the proposal actually comes off. :grin:

HT were gunna use the stock VWC are using now with the 90...

 

[Nick W]

the DVT is a waste of space,

But good for bikes!

and very heavy (they weight about twice as much as a normal Mk3),

The safety benefit outweighs energy implications.

 

[paul1609]

As I understand it 442s never worked in push-pull mode even with 33s.
The design was supposed to allow it but never actually worked.
As St Denys to Havant was electrified at this time providing an electrified diversionary route between southampton and london the need for push pull working was all but eliminated so the problem was never sorted out.

 

[Kris]

Certainly did work. We were diverted via Laverstock Loop - Soton to Basing one day because of engineering works - ended up about 1/2 hr early at Basing.

Also had a gas leak near Northam one Night so couldn't go past with a juicer. Quick phone call to Eastleigh (don't forget - this is under BR when everything and everyone worked together) and a Crompton took us round via Chandlers Ford, Romsey and the Test Valley to Soton.

Ever seen a Spongy Special (named after the shunter at Bomo) - ran until the end of the slammers? Sponge would tie on various amounts of slammers to pigs to have one driver take them to the depot 15 - 16 cars etc. You had to be careful not to go beyond notch 2 on the power handle.

 

[paul1609]

I dont think there was any problems with multiple working with units but I have an article somewhere that says the multiple working in push mode with locos didnt work. Dont think this was a problem with Laverstock diversions as a reversal was required and the loco was attached at the front.
I havent ever seen a picture of a 33 pushing a pig wheras it was common on footy specials for a 8 cep to be pushed from fratton to eastleigh before electrification.

 

[metrocammel]

I dont think there was any problems with multiple working with units but I have an article somewhere that says the multiple working in push mode with locos didnt work. Dont think this was a problem with Laverstock diversions as a reversal was required and the loco was attached at the front.
I havent ever seen a picture of a 33 pushing a pig wheras it was common on footy specials for a 8 cep to be pushed from fratton to eastleigh before electrification.

It would be rather dreadful to have an ED or Crompton pushing a 442 up the ECML!!! Now Im sure HT's revenue would soar from the amount of bashers that would attract!!!

Also, on another note - Looking at the state of the TRSB's (and possibly a BFO?) outside Marcroft Engineering in Stoke, the coaches look far from being in any fit state to run in service. So, to me, May seems very, very optomistic .

 

[Kris]

I dont think there was any problems with multiple working with units but I have an article somewhere that says the multiple working in push mode with locos didnt work. Dont think this was a problem with Laverstock diversions as a reversal was required and the loco was attached at the front.
I havent ever seen a picture of a 33 pushing a pig wheras it was common on footy specials for a 8 cep to be pushed from fratton to eastleigh before electrification.

They've stuck 73's on the back a number of times - I bought one back from Basing' Barton Mill this way. Woking driver for the 73 - I don't sign them - and I drove the pig end down to Branksome for the depot.

I believe a 73 was stuck on the back of one recently to get it back to Woking and to save paying for a pathway.

 

[Tom]

73s were stuck on the front (and backs!) of them recently on the Bomo - London services in the last few days to save pathways, the most significant was one on the 2205 London - Poole (attached at Woking) about a month before they ended, the second most significant was a 1759 Bomo - London about 2 weeks before they ended!

 

[Craig]

The only advantage a 442 would give over Mk3s and a DVT is that in the latter, the DVT is a waste of space, and very heavy (they weight about twice as much as a normal Mk3)

Do they? According to the Railway Centre a Mk3 DVT weights 43.7 tons, and a Mk3 TSO weighs 32 tons. Not quite twice as heavy.