GC vs NXEC

[yorkie]

Possibly, but only because you set about several people on a rumour.

What rumour?

They aren't they sell on line etc! If I go to say Reading station, I can't go through the barrier because I want to take Virgin all the way to Oxford instead of 1st GW, yet I would have to buy from their station if I hadn't bought in advance from Virgin.

XC (and Virgin before it) clearly are not in dispute with GW over that matter. Given XC's policies discouraging purchasing on board and encouraging sales of AP tickets, that's hardly surprising.

As I said, this is your interpretation.

Backed up by everyone I've spoken to who knows about the subject and backed up with real examples!

It really isn't important to most passengers, they want to get to A-B. They only reason why you are making a stand, is you are chums with GC staff.

I think it's unfair to say that. If GC have a policy that I think is not right, I will say so. I don't just blindly support everything GC does for no reason. As for the GC staff, I think the vast majority of them are very customer-focussed. Indeed, many NXEC staff are also, but some are not.

I don't entirely agree with every management decision GC makes. I feel they have made some mistakes, although they do appear to be learning from them. I am not biased toward GC.

Again, that's your interpretation and opinion. My feelings toward NXEC are indifferent, I don't see any concrete evidence there is any bitterness toward GC other than a bit of banter from one of their staff.

I've seen concrete evidence that some are bitter toward GC staff and passengers, some of that has been posted here. Short of calling people liars I don't see how you can discount them.

I've heard about NXEC staff chucking GC staff and passengers off their trains despite them being in posession of valid tickets. I am not going to post the full details including date, time, etc but it did happen for definite. I witnessed enough to know it did happen, given that they were not on the train they should have been on....

It's not, by all means, all NXEC staff. No-one is saying that it is. But for sure some of them do have a big attitude problem toward GC.

You know very well I support GC, but your obsession to make sure they get their 10% cut because you want to buy on board is bizarre.

I'm not aware that I said I want to buy on board?

Indeed I didn't used to buy on board very often, however as of this week that policy is changing, in order to prove a point and give GC that little bit extra, I may now buy on board more frequently. Certainly, I won't buy online if the train may be caped and I find the suggestions I should do so absurd.

Carry on, if you get arrested for walking through a ticket barrier that's your look out, but don't encourage other people if you can't post up anything in black and white and get that approved by an authorised person.

If NXEC try putting up barriers again, (big 'if' as I hear they have realised they are wrong) and I am able to, then I will do so, and will be very happy to tell them I am taking a Grand Central service and buying on board as is my right to do so.

My argument to you is it's not logical why you argue NXEC can't have a ticket barrier, if you think of the bigger picture.

My argument is not really about logic - it's about what the rules are. If they are illogical to you, then I'm sorry to hear that.

For the logic side of it, and morally whether or not NXEC are right to barrier GC trains, is something we will clearly never agree on.

But the fact is NXEC do not have the right to barrier GC trains whether any of us like that or not, and I don't see how I can prove it any more than asking GC myself, finding examples from other TOCs (NT vs TPE) - not that there are many examples of disputes as most TOCs are rather more co-operative than NXEC - and asking operators of chater trains (who are in a similar position). I've offered examples, what more can I do? To the best of what I can determine, it's fact. IANAL though.

 

[Metroland]

Well normally when I make these sorts of stands about what is essentially a legal and operational matter, I like to see it in black and white. Failing that, I ask someone, unless they have formal qualifications and are designated and authorised to make these decisions, then it simply isn’t good enough.

Let’s hope you're right and have approached the right people.

There’s is inter-TOC rivalry, indeed rivalry in all industries, but you knew that. I don’t actually see what’s so shocking about it all, rival companies do not behave gentlemanly about it especially when they are forced on the same turf. That’s the nature of competition. We all agree the way the rail industry is set up is less than ideal for the passenger, but that’s a whole different matter.

The moral argument doesn’t really stand, especially considering the ORCATS raid. You could equally argue it is immoral for GC to be getting such a large slice off other operators. I don’t actually see what this crusade is exactly about; still that’s your prerogative. Good Luck with it.

 

[David]

Just diving in again before fading back to obscurity ....

There’s is inter-TOC rivalry

True, but the extremes that NXEC take it at York is shocking. While York isn't a barriered station, NXEC platform staff only check a few tickets, and only then for one operator.

NXEC do not bother with head counts for TPE or XC (who both run to Newcastle), yet they offer a lot more seats and more frequent services than GC.

My point is NXEC should treat every other TOC at York the same, whether it's with a full ticket check and/or headcount, or even just leaving them to get on with it, no matter where the passengers are going, or who they are travelling with.

At the end of the day, Grand Central have spotted a gap in the market (IE, Sunderland, Hartlepool, etc to London) and they are trying to exploit that. If GNER had been more pro-active in previous years, they could have taken the market for themselves, and shut out competition then.

 

[me123]

NXEC do not bother with head counts for TPE or XC (who both run to Newcastle), yet they offer a lot more seats and more frequent services than GC.

That's one of the things I find hard to believe about this whole thing. NXEC directly competes with these companies and with Hull Trains to Doncaster and Grantham etc. Why are these companies not the "targets" as they certainly appear to be bigger competition to NXEC?

 

[yorkie]

That's one of the things I find hard to believe about this whole thing. NXEC directly competes with these companies and with Hull Trains to Doncaster and Grantham etc. Why are these companies not the "targets" as they certainly appear to be bigger competition to NXEC?

Quite.

Take Hull Trains. They only competed with GNER (the ICEC franchise is now operated by NXEC so I will refer to NXEC from now on) at two of the major stations on the main NXEC route out of King's Cross, namely Doncaster and Grantham. It could be argued that they were abstracting Donny/Grantham to London fares out of NXEC. Except they weren't - as the trains were overtaken. But then they got Meridians and these trains started generating ORCATS revenue which abstracted from NXEC, they also introduced stops at Retford and Stevenage.

Instead of a sudden situation where a company went from nothing to immediately generating £millions in revenue from ORCATS revenue that NXEC feel is rightly theirs, it was a slow process. Yet there have not been the howls of protest from NXEC. There have been no reports of headcounts being made on HT trains by NXEC, and no reports of NXEC barriering these trains.

Interestingly, HT grew the Selby-London market, and as a result NXEC decided to re-route from via Goole to via Selby. I assume those who moan at GC's ORCATS raid are equally unhappy at NXEC doing this?!

GC only compete with NXEC between York and London, and - to a small extent - between Northallerton and London (but NXEC could easily insert more stops at Northallerton if they wanted to address that). HT compete at more.

So why the big fuss about GC and not HT? It makes no sense!

 

[class 313]

They got Pioneers, not Meridians.

 

[upyourjunction]

Quite.




Interestingly, HT grew the Selby-London market, and as a result NXEC decided to re-route from via Goole to via Selby. I assume those who moan at GC's ORCATS raid are equally unhappy at NXEC doing this?!

GC only compete with NXEC between York and London, and - to a small extent - between Northallerton and London (but NXEC could easily insert more stops at Northallerton if they wanted to address that). HT compete at more.

So why the big fuss about GC and not HT? It makes no sense!

You really do make all this up as you go along don't you, NEXEC did not re-route via Selby, it was booked that way under GNER and in fact Goole hasn't had a direct service with London since BR

 

[Max]

You really do make all this up as you go along don't you, NEXEC did not re-route via Selby, it was booked that way under GNER and in fact Goole hasn't had a direct service with London since BR

Incorrect, the Hull Excecutive used to go via Goole although it didn't call there. It was diverted to call at Selby soon after Hull Trains started.

 

[william]

I'd say it was because GC are hitting one of NXEC key markets; York-London.
If GC provide non-stop and cheaper services than NXEC on this route, THEN NXEC are bound to get worried, especially since GC was meant to be generating new London growth, when in fact all its doing is taking 90% of its traffic from NXEC traffic (see report earlier). Taking existing traffic from Newcastle, Durham (for Wearside) and Darlington and York(for Teeside). Basically its direct competition for the North east and Yorkshire- London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
the further south, the shorter the distance to London, the less lucrative the express business is....

 

[theblackwatch]

Interesting all this debate about buying tickets from GC direct. From what I've seen and heard over the past couple of days, it seems some GC staff struggle to sell non-GC only tickets. One person I spoke to yesterday had decided to buy a ticket on the train, thereby giving GC all the commission - however, it seemed to cause so much difficulty that, to save the hassle, he has since bought his tickets from York station. I also witnessed a GC member of staff struggling to issue a Hartlepool-York 'route direct' ticket (rather than a GC specific one). If GC want people to buy onboard, they need to have knowledge of more than their own tickets.

 

[william]

Interesting all this debate about buying tickets from GC direct. From what I've seen and heard over the past couple of days, it seems some GC staff struggle to sell non-GC only tickets. One person I spoke to yesterday had decided to buy a ticket on the train, thereby giving GC all the commission - however, it seemed to cause so much difficulty that, to save the hassle, he has since bought his tickets from York station. I also witnessed a GC member of staff struggling to issue a Hartlepool-York 'route direct' ticket (rather than a GC specific one). If GC want people to buy onboard, they need to have knowledge of more than their own tickets.

What are you saying, GC struggle to issue their own tickets?

 

[Tom C]

Interesting all this debate about buying tickets from GC direct. From what I've seen and heard over the past couple of days, it seems some GC staff struggle to sell non-GC only tickets. One person I spoke to yesterday had decided to buy a ticket on the train, thereby giving GC all the commission - however, it seemed to cause so much difficulty that, to save the hassle, he has since bought his tickets from York station. I also witnessed a GC member of staff struggling to issue a Hartlepool-York 'route direct' ticket (rather than a GC specific one). If GC want people to buy onboard, they need to have knowledge of more than their own tickets.

Just out of interest do Grand Central guards have Advantix machines or are they issuing tickets through a 4407 excess pad?

Just about every person on this forum has played with Advantix Traveller and seen how simple it is to look up fares so it shouldn't be that difficult to find any fare.

If they are using a 4407 then it usually means sifting through a fares manual although with GC only tickets they should begin to learn the fares pretty quickly. Anyone who had to use a SPORTIS will tell you that certain fares which wern't on your local memory became second nature after a while.

 

[william]

Just about every person on this forum has played with Advantix Traveller

oh yeah, i play with them all the time

 

[theblackwatch]

What are you saying, GC struggle to issue their own tickets?

No, tickets other than their own.

 

[yorkie]

You really do make all this up as you go along don't you, NEXEC did not re-route via Selby, it was booked that way under GNER and in fact Goole hasn't had a direct service with London since BR

I certainly am not making it up.

Firstly, I did not say the change happened with the change in franchise holder. I said, "(the ICEC franchise is now operated by NXEC so I will refer to NXEC from now on)"

I have a copy of the 1998 timetable here, and Selby is not listed as a calling point from the Hull Executive. The service did go via Goole (without stopping) as it is a shorter route. I have a timetable from 2001, after the introduction of Hull Trains services, Selby is a calling point and has been ever since.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just out of interest do Grand Central guards have Advantix machines or are they issuing tickets through a 4407 excess pad?

The conductor issuing tickets was unsure of how to issue it as 'Route direct', it's a training issue. She was trying for a while. She knows how to do it now though.

If management were on the ball, they would recognise the following:-
1) their obligations to offer the cheapest tickets means they should actually offer them without the customer having to ask for it
3) more training for staff in issuing the 'Route Direct' tickets, as it was obvious before the service started that they would be popular.
3) the fact it is cheaper to split at Hartlepool using an inter-available ticket means there is a need to reduce the GC prices accordingly so that the GC prices are better value

I think the management have made a few mistakes with regard to getting the ticketing right. Clearly they have recognised that fact and have addressed many of the issues, as the ticketing is getting better with the abolishment of the supplements and the imminent arrival of railcard discounts. However there's still much more they could have done. I believe the next opportunity to change fares is in September, when they will have to at least re-name the fares anyway.

Meanwhile, passengers who had GC-only tickets were given Any Permitted Standard Open Singles in exchange for the GC only single or the appropriate portion of a GC only return so that they could continue their journey on NXEC beyond York. Apparently NXEC does not allow them to issue Savers. :???: It must be costing GC a fortune.

 

[90020]

This to be honest with you all, this has alarming similarities of when Virgin Atlantic started operations at Heathrow to British Airways', to which BA started it's 'dirty tricks' campaign against Virgin Atlantic. Can't NXEC accept abit of competition on the ECML? which I believe it to be good for the traveller.

I believe it's very wrong of NXEC to bully passengers into forcing them to show tickets.

But i'm not going to be one of these people who says i'm not travelling with NXEC because of there attitude towards GC. I'm just happy if I get to Kings Cross and find I have a choice of services to choose from.

 

[william]

I completely disagree. When the franchises were handed out, they were broken down into individual regions, corridors, etc. I dont think its fair that NXEC has its share of the pie eaten into without compensation, when no doubt it has fought hard to win the east coast franchise in the first place.
I mean how many of you would agree with allowing virgin to start running the odd train from edinburgh to kings X as part of the xc franchise. no, i believe its wrong, very wrong.

however, i also disagree with the underhand tactics it seems to be using (according to some of you lot) against GC passengers.

 

[theblackwatch]

I completely disagree. When the franchises were handed out, they were broken down into individual regions, corridors, etc. I dont think its fair that NXEC has its share of the pie eaten into without compensation, when no doubt it has fought hard to win the east coast franchise in the first place.

It's hardly like NXEC were unaware of GC's plans - in fact, GC was around (although it wasn't operating) well before NXEC even came into existence. Are you saying that monopolies should be handed out rather than franchises? (It would be a bit like someone being awarded a franchise to have a McDonalds, but try and insist on a clause that Burger King couldn't open in the same town.)

 

[william]

It's hardly like NXEC were unaware of GC's plans - in fact, GC was around (although it wasn't operating) well before NXEC even came into existence. Are you saying that monopolies should be handed out rather than franchises? (It would be a bit like someone being awarded a franchise to have a McDonalds, but try and insist on a clause that Burger King couldn't open in the same town.)

Howay, stop trying to draw similarities between two completely different industries.

I'll put my view accross quite simply; when franchises are awarded companies invest alot of money to win them. How, then can it be justified to have another toc muscle in on the same route? The answer is it cant.

 

[yorkie]

theblackwatch is absolutely right. National Express knew about GC when bidding for the franchise and chose to bid accordingly. That's up to them.

william - no, XC cannot "start running the odd train from edinburgh to kings X as part of the xc franchise" as it is not part of the XC franchise. Quite simple really!

An open access operator is not a franchise.

If you think open access operators are "wrong, very wrong" to operate, then I am very sorry you feel this way but the ORR has obligations under the law to make the right decision and, providing there is a case for providing a service to a new market, open access operators have every right to operate.

If you feel that is wrong, write to your MEP and ask them to campaign to get the law changed.

How, then can it be justified to have another toc muscle in on the same route? The answer is it cant.

Actually, the law says it can. And National Express had every opportunity to factor the GC situation into their bid, GC did not come later.

 

[theblackwatch]

Howay, stop trying to draw similarities between two completely different industries.

I'll put my view accross quite simply; when franchises are awarded companies invest alot of money to win them. How, then can it be justified to have another toc muscle in on the same route?

Why should a business be given a monopoly just because it has invested heavily in it? One of the intentions of rail privatisation was to create competition within the industry - refusing access would go totally against this.

 

[william]

If you feel that is wrong, write to your MEP and ask them to campaign to get the law changed.

lol

theblackwatch is absolutely right. National Express knew about GC when bidding for the franchise and chose to bid accordingly. That's up to them.

william - no, XC cannot "start running the odd train from edinburgh to kings X as part of the xc franchise" as it is not part of the XC franchise. Quite simple really!

An open access operator is not a franchise.

If you think open access operators are "wrong, very wrong" to operate, then I am very sorry you feel this way but the ORR has obligations under the law to make the right decision and, providing there is a case for providing a service to a new market, open access operators have every right to operate.

So let me get this right.......an existing toc cannot operate on anothers turf, as in the vxc example i gave, but a new toc coming in as an open access operator can?

i thought the only reason that GC was allowed to operate is because it was generating new business, even though i take the view that it is merely poaching NXEC.

i think that is the question to be answered is it not?

 

[yorkie]

So let me get this right.......an existing toc cannot operate on anothers turf, as in the vxc example i gave, but a new toc coming in as an open access operator can?

An existing TOC can extend into "anothers turf" if permission is given, but if it is beyond the scope of the franchise then the TOC has to fund it entirely themselves.

In your XC example, XC would have no rolling stock to use for this service and they certainly could not divert stock required elsewhere. They would not get the paths, and as they are not providing a new through service they would not get permission to do it!

i thought the only reason that GC was allowed to operate is because it was generating new business, even though i take the view that it is merely poaching NXEC.

i think that is the question to be answered is it not?

It is generating new business. I demonstrated that in the GC updates topic. I see you replied "them people could have previously boarded trains at newcastle, durham, darlington" - would "them" people have definitely done that? Have you asked them? Do you believe that everyone who uses Hull Trains from Hull, Brough, Howden and Selby would definitely have used Northern to connect at Doncaster?

Even if you are right (which is dubious), you must admit that these people would have travelled by other means - taxi, car, bus, etc to connect to the ECML. Why should people have to do this? By that logic, you may as well close all lines other than a few main lines and tell people to drive to railheads?!

 

[djw1981]

Why should a business be given a monopoly just because it has invested heavily in it? One of the intentions of rail privatisation was to create competition within the industry - refusing access would go totally against this.

Virgin West Coast anyone.................:grin:?

 

[Metroland]

It still proves the idiocy of the system as I have pointed out. All this red tape for a train service that will probably only generate a couple of million worth of extra business (the cost of the red tape probably exceeds revenue) the rest relies on a ORCATS raid.

While I support the services to the NE, the whole structure of the railways need to be looked at to ensure it is as cost effective as possible. We cannot afford the luxury of social experiments in what will become an increasingly vital industry. As I said, there is no evidence that competition (in this form at any rate) has brought prices down for passengers or the industry.

 

[djw1981]

An existing TOC can extend into "anothers turf" if permission is given, but if it is beyond the scope of the franchise then the TOC has to fund it entirely themselves.

In your XC example, XC would have no rolling stock to use for this service and they certainly could not divert stock required elsewhere. They would not get the paths, and as they are not providing a new through service they would not get permission to do it!

It is generating new business. I demonstrated that in the GC updates topic. I see you replied "them people could have previously boarded trains at newcastle, durham, darlington" - would "them" people have definitely done that? Have you asked them? Do you believe that everyone who uses Hull Trains from Hull, Brough, Howden and Selby would definitely have used Northern to connect at Doncaster?

What is unknown and will not be known until the ORCATS/LENNON data is out in 6-12months time is whether they have grown the market from York to London, or just north of York. If that market has not grown, then the claims of ORCATS extraction would be partly proved. With the number of services that were running Kings Cross -York (on the interim and then contingency timetables), I fear that this may have happened, and this strengthens any NXEC case. The easy solution to that is for ORR to say 'pick up northbound only at York and vice versa, which no-one wants to see.

 

[BlueGrey]

I think what this post seems to be missing is that whether Great Central is fairly or unfairly 'poaching' some of NXEC's ticket revenue (though apparently legally) if Great Central get into serious financial difficulty the direct InterCity type service between Sunderland and London would be lost which would be a great loss for the local community and also to a lesser extent forum members (as rail enthusiasts). Because of this I can see why many forum members would wish to buy their tickets onboard and support Great Central. While it appears that members of NXEC staff on this forum have suffered criticism (fairly or unfairly) at some of their posts I would hope that as rail enthusiasts themselves they would wish Great Central's services to continue and possibly even suggest to some of their colleagues that they consider being less anti GC (as it certainly appears some NXEC staff have been doing this). I do not know too much about the Great Central situation but it seems a little early to judge them. As far as I am aware they sent all their rolling stock for full overhaul before putting it into service so its seems they have been unlucky that their reliability has been so low. Also I believe they have quite a few staff who are new to the railway industry. These staff have obviously not had the smoothest start to their railway career and as they gain more experience (not very easy at the moment with so few trains running) they will get better and this will help the Great Central service improve further. I realise this situation is understandably creating some friction between GC and NXEC but like I say I presume we are all rail enthusiasts on this site and as such we should be supportive of any venture to improve our rail industry. One last thing I don't think anybody should be encouraging people to delibarately ignore ticket checks however annoying or apparently underhand they are. You could always complain to the relevent TOC afterwards. As one poster pointed out there are younger members on this rail forum who could potentially get themselves into trouble following this suggestion.

 

[yorkie]

As I said, there is no evidence that competition (in this form at any rate) has brought prices down for passengers or the industry.

What about the introduction of the NXEC only business saver?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One last thing I don't think anybody should be encouraging people to delibarately ignore ticket checks however annoying or apparently underhand they are. You could always complain to the relevent TOC afterwards. As one poster pointed out there are younger members on this rail forum who could potentially get themselves into trouble following this suggestion.

1) the word "ignore" was not used.
2) how can you "get into trouble" by buying on board GC? is there any evidence to suggest anyone can get into trouble for that or is this just made up?

I am extremely disappointed to see that there are a few people who support NXEC's underhand tactics

 

[Metroland]

What about the introduction of the NXEC only business saver?

What about the price hikes elsewhere making rail fares the most expensive in the EU and the £4.6 billion subsidy the industry receives compared to less then £1 billion in BR days and break even or in profit pre 1955?

Railways are actually a cheap form of mass transit. That's why the poor of China and India use them and have car ownership rates at less than 20 in 1000 people!

Yet we have created a very expensive system just to enable people like Grand central earn an extra couple of million to Teeside and a service that probably won't last much longer to Wrexham?

A slightly lower business saver, is here nor there. WCML, Airline, coach and private car competition on the ECML should be enough to keep good operators prices low.

If the railway industry was any good at it's job, instead of being so bumblingly bureaucratic, it would have been on TV today, saying don't worry if fuel prices go up, we'll take the freight. Because that's exactly what advertising campaigns they are running in the US and doing nicely thank you very much.

 

[theblackwatch]

What about the introduction of the NXEC only business saver?

You beat me to that one! For the benefit of those who don't know the background to this ticket, there is a 'Business Saver' ticket from York to London, valid on trains arriving at King's Cross after 10.30, priced at £122.50 - valid on any TOC. In March or April, NXEC suddenly introduced a 'NXEC Only Business Saver' priced at £90. This NXEC only version has not been introduced from any other station (such as Leeds, Doncaster, Retford where there are other TOCs people could travel with, so I have no doubt it is due to the appearance of Grand Central on the market. As a result of the competition, NXEC customers are benefiting from the option of a reduced fare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A slightly lower business saver, is here nor there. WCML, Airline, coach and private car competition on the ECML should be enough to keep good operators prices low.

But in the real world it doesn't keep the prices low - NXEC's predecessor put up it's Business Saver by some 27% a few years ago. Would they have done that if there had been another operator running on the route? I may be wrong, but I suspect not!