Should Grand Central be shut down?

[Bletchleyite]

This thread:

Grand Central Abandoning Customers

I noticed on twitter today that Grand Centrals 1A61 1213 Sunderland to Kings Cross terminated at Northallerton due to a train fault. GCs advise on Twitter was:- We're sorry, due to a train fault the 12:13 Sunderland - London Kings Cross service is terminating at Northallerton. Passengers who...

www.railforums.co.uk

...highlights one of the many times the Open Access TOC Grand Central has failed to meet its legal, contractual (and moral) obligations during disruption, an event which is far too frequent due to the chronic unreliability of the junk Class 180 fleet.

In my view they should be shut down, because it's not acceptable that a business - any business - should be able to consistently renege on its obligations, which exist to create a level playing field and avoid businesses profiting from taking advantage of customers. If they were, it would open up paths for another, better behaved company such as FirstGroup who have existing ECML open access operations to come in and do better. (They aren't perfect of course but GC are the pits).

What do others think?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

Lumo, didn't they just not run at all last Sunday...

(From the other thread)

Quite possibly better than stranding a load of people in a place that is (a) neither their origin nor destination, (b) doesn't have many taxis and (c) doesn't have many hotels. But obviously for entirely different reasons and notified in advance.

 

[signed]

It should, but since they basically have no repercussion for their actions, that will never happen.

Nothing happen to them, apart from the comparatively small rerouting cost, unless you slap a EU/UK261 (Air Passenger Rights) equivalent to the railway (which would be a great thing to do either way, though the obvious conflict of interest will make that never happen), with proper repercussions to the companies when the **** up is their own fault.

 

[Dr Hoo]

UK261??

 

[SuspectUsual]

Yes, they probably should. But without an effective regulator, it won't happen

And let's be clear, this is a top down policy to ignore their obligations, not localised/occasional mistakes, poor information, misunderstanding etc.

They are cynically exploiting the lack of regulation to repeatedly let their passengers down

 

[signed]

UK261??

Air Passenger Rights regulation (EU261 transcribed in UK law)

 

[Starmill]

UK261??

I think it's a reference to the retained UK implementation of the old European directive on airlines' obligations in case of flight disruption. It's formerly known by the short hand EU261.

 

[43066]

It seems an odd suggestion - shut down by whom? Who is the arbiter of what is “moral”?

They have competition on the route and, if they really were that bad, surely they would long since have gone out of business. The fact they haven’t, in many years of operating on the route, suggests they aren’t generally seen as badly as some on here believe. Why should those people be denied the choice to use them if they wish?

In many cases the obligations are ridiculously onerous and impossible for even the franchised TOCs to live up to for various practical and logistical reasons - as the threads on here regularly show. So perhaps the solution is more sensibly qualified obligations (eg if there are do not travel warnings, you won’t get any assistance and are on your own, or a modification of the PRO to reflect reasonable endeavours rather than something closer to absolute). Then people can simply decide whether they’re happy to use the railway under those conditions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Air Passenger Rights regulation (EU261 transcribed in UK law)

I don't think it should be the same as that (I actually agree with Ryanair that the sums involved shouldn't be a flat amount but rather based on the full fare paid including any taxes and extras), but yes, there should be legal rather than simply contractual rights for rail passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

It seems an odd suggestion - shut down by whom?

Whoever is responsible for OAOs complying with all relevant regulations. ORR?

Who is the arbiter of what is “moral”?

Given that they persistently fail to comply with legal and contractual requirements, which are enforceable, I don't think that really matters that much.

 

[signed]

(I actually agree with Ryanair that the sums involved shouldn't be a flat amount but rather based on the full fare paid including any taxes and extras)

I do agree with it as well

there should be legal rather than simply contractual rights for rail passengers

There are some now in the EU (EU2021/782), but they are puny compared to the air ones (though I understand the argument of the airlines were doing whatever they wanted to abuse the passengers so they had to turn the tables around 180° for the consumer)

 

[Bletchleyite]

In many cases the obligations are ridiculously onerous and impossible for even the franchised TOCs to live up to for various practical and logistical reasons - as the threads on here regularly show. So perhaps the solution is more sensibly qualified obligations (eg if there are do not travel warnings, you won’t get any assistance and are on your own, or a modification of the PRO to reflect reasonable endeavours rather than something closer to absolute). Then people can simply decide whether they’re happy to use the railway under those conditions.

I don't think any TOC operating Class 180s without a LOT of spare units is reasonably doing anything - they are known to be unreliable tat.

But that aside I don't think stranding people at Northallerton and telling them to sort themselves out is anything like reasonable. It might be, in the circumstances, if like SWR they said sort yourself out *and here is how you get the cost reimbursed*.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

There are some now in the EU (EU2021/782), but they are puny compared to the air ones (though I understand the argument of the airlines were doing whatever they wanted to abuse the passengers so they had to turn the tables around 180° for the consumer)

To be fair EU261 was primarily aimed at airlines deliberately overbooking flights (an act which is purely done to increase income) and turning people away, and they did require a heavy whack for that to make doing it no longer profitable. Rail is different because "overbooking" doesn't work the same way - if too many tickets are sold "for" a given train people can normally just stand but still travel.

 

[signed]

you won’t get any assistance and are on your own,

That would be extremely anti-consumer, people do need to travel even in do not travel. You would put a unduely burden on people that rely on rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

eg if there are do not travel warnings, you won’t get any assistance and are on your own

I'd be OK with that if there was strict and enforceable regulation on when Do Not Travel can be declared, for example only when the Met Office has issued an amber or higher weather warning, and not just because the TOC (yes, you, Northern) can't be bothered either staffing appropriately or publishing a timetable commensurate with their actual staff complement, and even then some requirements should remain, e.g. accommodation if away from home, just as they exist for air travel. EU261 doesn't pay compensation if out of airline control, but providing accommodation is still required, and that's quite right too.

In this case, it would probably be reasonable for Do Not Travel to be issued if the incident had closed the ECML for an extended period (it didn't), but obligations should still remain to ensure the safety of those stranded overnight away from home just as they do for air travel. Even if the best that can be done is getting a local Scout Hut unlocked for the night (there's actually one just over from Northallerton station) or letting people sit in the booking office/waiting rooms (as happened at Preston during severe weather a while back as all local hotels were fully booked, though that at Northallerton is probably too small) there is usually something that is possible.

If the railway happens not to like the risk that poses to their bank account, they always have the option of reinsuring it.

GC's options may have been limited, but they had options. That they wilfully took none of them aside from "get lost, sort yourself out" is what leads me to this thread.

 

[renegademaster]

They serve a niche and keep people off the road. They should be forced however to put a large disclaimer that they do not offer the same disruption help as the franchises do on their website, but for people who want get somewhere very cheap and arent worried about when they arrive , they are a valuable service.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I don't think it should be the same as that (I actually agree with Ryanair that the sums involved shouldn't be a flat amount but rather based on the full fare paid including any taxes and extras), but yes, there should be legal rather than simply contractual rights for rail passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==



Whoever is responsible for OAOs complying with all relevant regulations. ORR?



Given that they persistently fail to comply with legal and contractual requirements, which are enforceable, I don't think that really matters that much.

Can you be more explicit about precisely which requirements you have in mind? Is the ORR the formal enforcement body (in the way that it is for safety)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you be more explicit about precisely which requirements you have in mind?

An example is the EU derived legal requirement to re-route passengers in the event of a delay of more than one hour (which to be fair the whole railway likes to ignore). But there are plenty of legal and NRCoT rights which relate to not stranding people.

Is the ORR the formal enforcement body (in the way that it is for safety)?

Good question, I don't know.

 

[Harpo]

If GC’s NCOT obligations are enshrined in its regulated access agreement, it is presumably in breach of both if it doesn’t meet NCOT??

 

[43066]

Given that they persistently fail to comply with legal and contractual requirements, which are enforceable, I don't think that really matters that much.

My point really is we can discount morality from these discussions. As you say we have an existing legal system with enforceable obligations. So if people feel they’ve been wronged by GC in an actionable sense they have recourse to the courts. I suspect few people bother, though. That’s partly because only a tiny minority of their passengers end up stranded, and because those who do probably make other arrangements and any “loss” simply isn’t worth claiming for.

GC comply with their contractual obligations the vast majority of the time (I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise), and it isn’t illegal for a company to breach contracts - it is sometimes unavoidable!

I don't think any TOC operating Class 180s without a LOT of spare units is reasonably doing anything - they are known to be unreliable tat.

They are indeed. But safe to operate as far as the ORR are concerned, and presumably not unreliable enough to be banned from the network altogether. Things will hopefully improve when their new fleet arrives.

Ultimately, so long as all relevant safety requirements are met, running with a cheap fleet is a commercial decision. If the unreliability is that bad people will stop using them and they’ll go bust.

People probably also realise that GC, LUMO etc are cheaper for a reason. You might have to wait a few hours if your train is cancelled, and you might be more likely to be stranded, but you’re certainly not paying LNER prices. The saying “buy cheap, buy twice” springs to mind. Many people prefer to buy cheap and take the risk!

But that aside I don't think stranding people at Northallerton and telling them to sort themselves out is anything like reasonable. It might be, in the circumstances, if like SWR they said sort yourself out *and here is how you get the cost reimbursed*.

They should perhaps have made it clear you could rebook and claim back the difference between the refund and the cost of the new ticket (if any).

I'd be OK with that if there was strict and enforceable regulation on when Do Not Travel can be declared, for example only when the Met Office has issued an amber or higher weather warning, and not just because the TOC (yes, you, Northern) can't be bothered either staffing appropriately or publishing a timetable commensurate with their actual staff complement, and even then some requirements should remain, e.g. accommodation if away from home, just as they exist for air travel. EU261 doesn't pay compensation if out of airline control, but providing accommodation is still required, and that's quite right too.

I’d agree with that (we have discussed this aspect before).

An example is the EU derived legal requirement to re-route passengers in the event of a delay of more than one hour (which to be fair the whole railway likes to ignore).

That should he subject to reasonable endeavours, force majure etc., as sometimes it simply isn’t physically possible. So I’d suggest we either change the obligations to be more realistic, or we have to continue to accept they won’t be complied with and that nothing will happen.

Can you be more explicit about precisely which requirements you have in mind? Is the ORR the formal enforcement body (in the way that it is for safety)?

Their remit is safety; they aren’t there to get involved in contractual disputes AIUI. There’s the ombudsman for that I believe.

If GC’s NCOT obligations are enshrined in its regulated access agreement, it is presumably in breach of both if it doesn’t meet NCOT??

It would be interesting to know whether they only have a “best endeavours” type obligation to comply with them. If so they could conceivably discharge their obligations to the DfT under their access agreement while falling short of the onerous rerouting obligations in the PRO etc. to the passengers!

 

[Bletchleyite]

GC comply with their contractual obligations the vast majority of the time (I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise), and it isn’t illegal for a company to breach contracts - it is sometimes unavoidable!

Indeed, though when they do they are generally obliged to put things right e.g. by way of compensation.

They are indeed. But safe to operate as far as the ORR are concerned, and presumably not unreliable enough to be banned from the network altogether. Things will hopefully improve when their new fleet arrives.

Is a new fleet now on order?

Ultimately, so long as all relevant safety requirements are met, running with a cheap fleet is a commercial decision. If the unreliability is that bad people will stop using them and they’ll go bust.

I would personally not go near them now. I've used them precisely once, and the sole reason I did (on an Any Permitted walk up) was to sit in the declassified first class on the old HSTs

By contrast I've used Lumo and probably would again (subject to it being a short trip where I only required a small amount of luggage), they are just more professionally run, and while a stranding is possible it's much, much less likely.

They should perhaps have made it clear you could rebook and claim back the difference between the refund and the cost of the new ticket (if any).

I think this is absolutely key, and I think they deliberately didn't. If they had (as e.g. SWR do quite often) this thread probably wouldn't exist - I do recognise the practicalities of arranging mass alternatives somewhere like Northallerton (I actually know the place fairly well).

That should he subject to reasonable endeavours, force majure etc., as sometimes it simply isn’t physically possible. So I’d suggest we either change the obligations to be more realistic, or we have to continue to accept they won’t be complied with and that nothing will happen.

I don't think it is even vaguely reasonable to consider a failure of a known-unreliable DMU as "force majeure". Force majeure is things like very severe weather, war, terrorism and the likes - basically what used to be called unforeseeable "acts of God". COVID was a classic example of one. These things are generally seen to "frustrate" a contract, i.e. render neither side able to comply with it and thus nullify it, with a simple refund being the only required remedy.

Their remit is safety; they aren’t there to get involved in contractual disputes AIUI. There’s the ombudsman for that I believe.

And we know of course that the Ombudsman has no teeth

It would be interesting to know whether they have a best endeavours type obligation to comply with them. If so they could conceivably discharge their obligations under their access agreement while falling short of the onerous rerouting obligations in the PRO etc.

I don't think the PRO requirement is particularly onerous.

 

[sprunt]

In many cases the obligations are ridiculously onerous and impossible for even the franchised TOCs to live up to for various practical and logistical reasons - as the threads on here regularly show.

Then they shouldn't freely enter into an agreement which places those obligations on them. Going back to your question about morality, Id say it's unquestionably immoral to sign a contract which one has no intention of upholding one's obligations under.

 

[signed]

they did require a heavy whack for that to make doing it no longer profitable

But the railway does need a heavy whack for their systemic failures of under-staffing, and ideally under-stocking (though that is DfT, so nothing would be done for that).

Once some serious measures are set in place, they (looking at you Northern and Avanti) will soon find that running with appropriate staff is more profitable than paying astronomical amount of compensation every year.

 

[yorkie]

While GC are certainly the worst culprits, all of the operators on this route have been caught mistreating customers, on multiple occasions, and this very much includes LNER too.

I would like to see severe financial punishments for such mistreatments, with the money being reinvested in ways that directly benefit customers.

In a fantasy world, I'd like to see a more level playing field, with plainclothed mystery shoppers behaving in a similar way to revenue inspectors (except to consistently act appropriately, correctly and reasonably!) and for out of court settlement penalty notices to be issued to TOCs found in breach.

This would effectively put GC out of business, as they would be in breach so often! LNER would take the financial hit but the penalties would no doubt make them change their ways.

However, in the real world, nothing will happen. The status quo will remain.

We won't get an effective ombudsman, regulator or passenger watchdog with any real teeth any time soon, if ever at all.

...the obligations are ridiculously onerous and impossible for even the franchised TOCs to live up to for various practical and logistical reasons ...

If companies believe their obligations are not possible for them to keep, they should not be entering contracts on that basis.

In any case, there are plenty of instances of operators choosing not to provide passengers with their rights, when there is no financial cost to the industry of a whole to do so; this has been found to even be the case when the only operators involved are OLR companies and where there are loads of empty seats going spare (as reported by @ainsworth74 a few days ago).

 

[Kingston Dan]

As a regular user of Thirsk station, I'd be happy to see them go, provided LNER picked up their services. It wouldn't be a particularly good change for LNER to simply use the slots for more fast services to Edinburgh and Leeds.

 

[harz99]

As a regular user of Thirsk station, I'd be happy to see them go, provided LNER picked up their services. It wouldn't be a particularly good change for LNER to simply use the slots for more fast services to Edinburgh and Leeds.

And therein lies the rub, if as some think GC were to be stripped of it's licence and closed down, my feeling is that no other operator would come forward and take on the two GC routes.

Not least because apart from the 180s, there are no other readily available 125mph trains to use!

Many communities would, for a period of time, lose their direct link to London, or York in the case of stations Sunderland to Eaglescliffe, and possibly never get it back.

 

[Starmill]

I don't think it should be the same as that (I actually agree with Ryanair that the sums involved shouldn't be a flat amount but rather based on the full fare paid including any taxes and extras), but yes, there should be legal rather than simply contractual rights for rail passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==



Whoever is responsible for OAOs complying with all relevant regulations. ORR?



Given that they persistently fail to comply with legal and contractual requirements, which are enforceable, I don't think that really matters that much.

It is ORR's job to enforce the licence obligation yes. ORR could also beef up their compensation rules via the licence (they already have some in place in this regard).

 

[Bletchleyite]

And therein lies the rub, if as some think GC were to be stripped of it's licence and closed down, my feeling is that no other operator would come forward and take on the two GC routes.

Not least because apart from the 180s, there are no other readily available 125mph trains to use!

Many communities would, for a period of time, lose their direct link to London, or York in the case of stations Sunderland to Eaglescliffe, and possibly never get it back.

Better not to have something than to have it and it be rubbish (and Arriva be profiting off it being rubbish - at least sanctions should ensure they are not able to make any profit until they sort it out).

 

[Starmill]

Given that they persistently fail to comply with legal and contractual requirements, which are enforceable, I don't think that really matters that much.

Indeed. There are two separate issues:

Can GC comply with today's obligations in law and contract?

Could GC comply with potentially more expensive provisions in the future?

If the answer to both is no then I think the entire business is in doubt. It's not really an existential problem if they just follow the former but couldn't the latter.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It is ORR's job to enforce the licence obligation yes. ORR could also beef up their compensation rules via the licence (they already have some in place in this regard).

What are the ORR’s (“their”) compensation rules, as distinct from the standard ones that flow from various cross-industry schemes that all passenger TOCs have to be members of?

 

[Starmill]

Better not to have something than to have it and it be rubbish (and Arriva be profiting off it being rubbish - at least sanctions should ensure they are not able to make any profit until they sort it out).

Indeed.

If Arriva are allowed to take profits from the business by leasing cheap rolling stock and skimping on maintenance, then when they just abandon the public in small towns without onward transport to destination or back to their origin, then all it will do is encourage other entrants to the market to try to do the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

What are the ORR’s (“their”) compensation rules, as distinct from the standard ones that flow from various cross-industry schemes that all passenger TOCs have to be members of?

The rules are simply around communication of an entitlement to compensation, not what the compensation will be.

Unfortunately there are no standard rules to what passenger train operators have to provide beyond that written into the PRO and NRCoT.

 

[ainsworth74]

(and Arriva be profiting off it being rubbish - at least sanctions should ensure they are not able to make any profit until they sort it out)

Is it profiting? I am by no means an expert at reading company accounts but GC's latest for the year to 31 December 2022 (we're waiting for their 2023 accounts) do not make happy reading to my eye! They show a pre-tax loss of £3.2m (an improvement to be fair on 2021 which was a pre-tax loss of £22.2m) and had net liabilities of £41.9m having seemingly been kept afloat by a line of credit from DB worth up to £45m which was paid off by issuing shares to Arriva Trains UK in exchange for a £50m injection of equity to GC allowing them to pay off DB and presumably give them some operating cash headroom as well.

Again, not an expert but that doesn't read like a company which is returning profits to Arriva at any great scale! Of course those are now basically two years out of date so perhaps the position has markedly changed...

 

[Taunton]

Yes, they probably should. But without an effective regulator, it won't happen

The strange thing is, the industry as a whole now has a whole range of organisations, all of whom seem to have well paid staff, who, whether they have "Regulator" in their title or not, appear to have a regulatory function. And yet none of them appear to carry this out. I can only presume that because there are so many of these around, each assumes that one of the others will handle any issues. And thus nothing gets done.