Grand Central Abandoning Customers

[TUC]

Yes, and not trying to absolve them, but what are those other arrangements they could make?

They won't have a spare train nearby, and I suspect no STP path they could run a train in.

LNER have presumably said they won't take their customers because of the reduced timetable.

I can't imagine chartering a number of coaches at zero notice is practical.

The alternative arrangement is travel tomorrow, or earlier to meet the replacement train in Doncaster, ie 1653 rather than 1738 from Kings Cross.

Their problem to solve though isn't it, even if it involves multiple taxis? You choose to run a rail company, it's part of the risks of what you're taking on.

 

[357]

What does TAA mean?

Track Access Agreement. The contract between the TOC and NR for the paths/schedules on the tracks.

GC are up for renewal in (I believe) 2027, and have stated that the application for renewal includes commitment to new trains.

Arriva's Grand Central applies for extended track access rights

Grand Central to submit application to the rail regulator for extended track access up to 2038. Proposals for a new, greener fleet are outlined as part of the application. Application signals Arriva’s long-term commitment to UK rail.

news.arriva.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

It isn't really the responsibility of the rest of the railway to pick up their pieces.

Why not ? The industry as a whole is a public service to get people where they need to be. It should be up to the industry to achieve that between itself.

 

[STINT47]

Whilst arranging taxis and or hotels etc would be nice I suspect that this would wipe our Grand Central profits so I can understand why they are unable to offer these things.

If they're pushed to hard to provide compensation/alternative options there is untimely a risk that they could go out of business. Not something anyone would want to see if you rely on them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst arranging taxis and or hotels etc would be nice I suspect that this would wipe our Grand Central profits so I can understand why they are unable to offer these things.

If it's not viable to trade while complying with all relevant entitlements and regulations in law and the NRCoT, then your business is not viable and should close down. It's as simple as that.

What else should they save money on - safety?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2024 ==

If they're pushed to hard to provide compensation/alternative options there is untimely a risk that they could go out of business. Not something anyone would want to see if you rely on them.

I think their attitude stinks and the railway would be better off without them (indeed, I think public transport in the UK as a whole would be better off without Arriva as a whole, but this is one particularly rotten part of it that I'd knock on the head first). If the routes are viable to run properly someone else (e.g. FirstGroup) will come in and do it (not that Lumo is 100% on this behaviour, but it's certainly better).

In the end, it's simply wrong that any business should be allowed to continue trading and making a profit while failing to comply with all legal and contractual matters applying to them. That's a bad business.

 

[Ziggiesden]

Any other operator that's in a position to assist passengers is obliged to do so under NRCoT condition 28.2.

As per the screenshot below, LNER are still happy to sell cheap Advances in both standard and first class on their 20:51 from Kings Cross to York. There is also an earlier itinerary involving the 20:02 from St Pancras, involving changes at Derby and Leeds.

View attachment 166898

It is therefore plainly evident that there are alternative services that GC's passengers could be accommodated on. Therefore the operators of those services would be obliged to accept GC passengers' tickets. Sadly we know that operators routinely breach the NRCoT with impunity, so the legal and practical positions are often different.

GC themselves are of course also under an obligation to arrange alternative transport for passengers (which is not conditional on how easy it is for them). They should have been arranging ticket acceptance on the above services, and if those negotiations failed despite their best efforts, they should have ensured they had staff in place at the relevant stations to issue new tickets and refreshments free of charge to passengers.

They should also be making it 100% clear they will reimburse passengers who choose to buy their own tickets and refreshments, and paying delay compensation on top.

As it stands, affected passengers will almost certainly have a claim against GC and they may also have a claim against other operators if they are wrongly charged extra to avail of their NRCoT 28.2 rights. I would, however, not expect a smooth experience in trying to claim back the relevant amounts from GC/other TOCs.


They've effectively gone "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas". There are so many more things they could easily have done, some of which I've listed above. But they save money by fobbing customers off, and they know they'll get away with it, so that's the path they've chosen to take.


It absolutely is. Tickets are issued under the NRCoT, which all National Rail operators are signatories to. That includes the 28.2 requirement to assist other TOCs' stranded passengers. The TSA also contains a similar requirement although it's unclear whether it would apply in these circumstances.

Of course, it's perfectly reasonable for GC to be sent the bill for the assistance other TOCs render. But passengers shouldn't be left stranded because of petty disputes between operators.


I agree that having open access operators always adds complexity. However, the evidence from Spain, France and Italy is that it encourages bureaucratic state operators to up their game and become more competitive. As such, there are arguments for and against it.

I think the most important thing is that passengers aren't left carrying the can when things go wrong. That necessitates much More hands-on regulation by the ORR, including enforcing existing licence obligations (such as the obligation to comply with the PRO).

A few test cases "pour encourager les autres" where recalcitrant operators like GC are prosecuted and threatened with licence suspension would quickly get all the TOCs in line. That's exactly what we saw when the RRB accessibility issue headed towards a judicial review.


In practical terms, perhaps. In legal terms, absolutely not - because of NRCoT 28.2.


Not an excuse for stranding customers, of course. Even if it proved completely impossible to accommodate passengers on alternative trains today (which is clearly not the case) then GC should be making it clear they'll arrange hotels or pay for the bill afterwards.


That alternative arrangement is completely unacceptable and there are a range of alternatives, as I've outlined above.

You must remember that each new incarnation of the NRCoT is dependent on how each TOC wishes to qualify it. In the case of Split Tickets they are saying that a contract has ended, as it has for the purpose of X-S e.g. a Single into a Return.

If you have a TOC specific tickets they are refusing travel unless Control has agreed ticket acceptance and presumably, money changes hands somewhere.

Privatisation has caused chaos and continues to do so.

I have complained to RDG many a time over this, and other matters – after I point out they are wrong, in my opinion, they don’t respond anymore when they do bother to reply.

 

[AdamWW]

Whilst arranging taxis and or hotels etc would be nice I suspect that this would wipe our Grand Central profits so I can understand why they are unable to offer these things.

I suspect that if was caught on Grand Central without a ticket, they wouldn't be very sympathetic if I argued that while it would have been nice if I'd paid my fare it was too expensive and I was unable to.

Or, to put it another way - I have to obey the law, and so do they.

If open access doesn't work if operated legally, then it doesn't work.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect that if was caught on Grand Central without a ticket, they wouldn't be very sympathetic if I argued that while it would have been nice if I'd paid my fare it was too expensive and I was unable to.

Or, to put it another way - I have to obey the law, and so do they.

If open access doesn't work if operated legally, then it doesn't work.

Precisely my own thoughts too.

 

[Howardh]

I suspect that if was caught on Grand Central without a ticket, they wouldn't be very sympathetic if I argued that while it would have been nice if I'd paid my fare it was too expensive and I was unable to.

Or, to put it another way - I have to obey the law, and so do they.

If open access doesn't work if operated legally, then it doesn't work.

In an ideal world, any OA operator should post a bond (ABTA-style??) so if they go out of business and/or can't refund passenger's expenses, then that bond pays off the pax should they go bust or refuse to pay. However with budgets being tight, I doubt smaller companies could do that at the start?

But that should all be irrelevant as you allude to, the legal framework should cover the passenger, and if the TOC can't provide the safety net, then it should lose it's licence/franchise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that should all be irrelevant as you allude to, the legal framework should cover the passenger, and if the TOC can't provide the safety net, then it should lose it's licence/franchise.

See also Ryanair whining about having to pay EU/UK261 compensation. In the end they just have to cough up. It's a level playing field for all, and if you can't make a profit that way then your business model simply doesn't work and you should either change it so it does (e.g. charge a bit more for a less woeful service) or shut down the company.

 

[soil]

Not according to the wording of the PRO or NRCoT, which are the most concrete way you could go about a claim!

The EU's PRO creates basic passenger rights which are then met or exceeded by the NRCoT, i.e. PRO Article 16, and then 28-30 of NRCoT.

It doesn't abrogate basic contract law - they have not provided the service, and the passenger would be entitled to claim compensation based on the costs they have incurred minus the refund they have claimed.

 

[Bikeman78]

One key difference - Ryanair is VERY punctual and reliable.

And will eventually pay up for costs resulting from a cancellation. My friend chipped away at them for months. Eventually they gave in and coughed up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2024 ==

So the traincrew are attempting to recover a problem on the train, which is eventually declared a failure, all the while sitting blocking the Up line, they then have to detrain the passengers, and I assume move the train clear back into the Sidings as it eventually departed ECS from Northallerton to Doncaster.

And what, the guard then returns to the platform and sells tickets for a non existent later London train?

Does anyone know what the fault was? Unless a door was stuck open then taking the passengers to York ought to have been an option. I appreciate that policies vary from one TOC to another.

 

[Towers]

And will eventually pay up for costs resulting from a cancellation. My friend chipped away at them for months. Eventually they gave in and coughed up.

That is still completely unacceptable however; how much did they reimburse your friend for his time?!

What would be very welcome are significant punitive sanctions for organisations who don’t meet their legally binding obligations within an acceptable timeframe; indeed ideally the relevant legislation would provide a maximum acceptable time period within which those obligations must be met, with increasing additional percentages payable to the consumer if the timeframe is exceeded.

Corporations who view happily sh*tting on their paying customers when it suits them as a routine operating principle have no place trading in this day and age, it’s that simple.

 

[TUC]

Whilst arranging taxis and or hotels etc would be nice I suspect that this would wipe our Grand Central profits so I can understand why they are unable to offer these things.

If they're pushed to hard to provide compensation/alternative options there is untimely a risk that they could go out of business. Not something anyone would want to see if you rely on them.

Are you really saying that people should bear the costs themselves out of sympathy for Grand Central and a desire for them to continue in business? I want them to continue operating too, but your approach is the equivalent of leaving a furniture store having paid full price for a sofa.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

What is struggle with is there certainly is a demand for accessible buses from rail providers and a big one, just as there always has been. To say it's no longer worth the bus operators while, suggests either rail operators aren't using the service in the same way, or the rail operators just don't bother with it at all anymore (it has to be one of these - the requirements for rail operators to provide haven't changed, so the same market exists to the likes of First Travel Solutions)?

This shouldn't be rocket science - the market is there and if it truly is that bus operators just don't have the buses, then that's a contractual issue between the TOC and the bus provider. As I said previously - FTS are still offering "24/7 rapid response" with "over 500 partners nationwide".

I’m no longer directly involved in the coach industry, but as a general point, it’s dying on its feet.

Operators only need to have a certain percentage of accessibility adapted vehicles, and given the extra costs of buying those vehicles, and their upkeep, what I’m hearing from those still involved, it isnt worth it for the use they actually get - so if you’re going to have use of them, they really need to pay for themselves, and the race to the bottom pricing RRBs are running on these days isn’t cutting it.

That’s before you talk about the shortage of drivers (and remember, those drivers that are still in the industry can’t choose to work rest days for any reason).

So it may be that drivers aren’t available, drivers are out of hours, or there’s more profitable work to be had.

 

[357]

If it's not viable to trade while complying with all relevant entitlements and regulations in law and the NRCoT, then your business is not viable and should close down. It's as simple as that.

What else should they save money on - safety?

That's two very different things and a very serious allegation to make.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2024 ==

Does anyone know what the fault was? Unless a door was stuck open then taking the passengers to York ought to have been an option. I appreciate that policies vary from one TOC to another.

If that's your threshold to running a safe railway then I'm concerned. There are many faults that mean "everybody off". What if safety systems weren't working or had a wrong side failure?

It's worth noting that there are people who believe a train should be completely cancelled if the disabled toilet stops working so to read this did make me smile.

 

[AdamWW]

That's two very different things and a very serious allegation to make.

That was hardly an allegation though.

 

[Devils Advocat]

If there are many faults that mean "everybody off" then Contingency Arrangements need to be more resolute ?

 

[Horizon22]

I don't really know what the poster meant by that, but if LNER are prepared to sell tickets, then there clearly is capacity.

(For future reference, when replying to any previous post in any thread, please quote the post in question, to avoid confusion).

The position is as stated above by @Watershed and myself.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

The issue is there is a complete disconnect between guards / station staff advising controllers that trains are full and standing who have absoutely no control over revenue & ticketing matters with regards to services continuing to be sold on LNER's website.

There are a fair number of suggestions in the thread - some of which are reasonable - but actually implementing them is going to be incredibly complex if not impossible on a real-time basis.

 

[Starmill]

I'm going to assume here that you've some professional insight into the bus world? I don't, other than from a rail perspective and dealing with this stuff from both a management and frontline position over the years (currently I'm nothing to do with it so quite prepared to accept things have moved on).

What is struggle with is there certainly is a demand for accessible buses from rail providers and a big one, just as there always has been. To say it's no longer worth the bus operators while, suggests either rail operators aren't using the service in the same way, or the rail operators just don't bother with it at all anymore (it has to be one of these - the requirements for rail operators to provide haven't changed, so the same market exists to the likes of First Travel Solutions)?

This shouldn't be rocket science - the market is there and if it truly is that bus operators just don't have the buses, then that's a contractual issue between the TOC and the bus provider. As I said previously - FTS are still offering "24/7 rapid response" with "over 500 partners nationwide".

There is a reason why LNER always get emergency rail replacement call out via Stagecoach, or airlines, Metrolink and so on via CMAC, while First Travel Solutions and Arriva Road Transport get some availability but it's far patchier. There is availability but on-the-day rates are meaningfully higher than the pre-booked rates, and some TOCs pay that, others do not. You can't offer £550 and expect an eight hour shift to be covered on a Saturday at two hours notice. Try double that and you'll cover it.

 

[800001]

There is a reason why LNER always get emergency rail replacement call out via Stagecoach, or airlines, Metrolink and so on via CMAC, while First Travel Solutions and Arriva Road Transport get some availability but it's far patchier. There is availability but on-the-day rates are meaningfully higher than the pre-booked rates, and some TOCs pay that, others do not.

I believe Metrolink are also dealt with by Stagecoach from York Roc.

 

[Horizon22]

If there are many faults that mean "everybody off" then Contingency Arrangements need to be more resolute ?

In what sense? Many train faults mean the service is no longer allowed in passenger service as it would be unsafe otherwise.

The vast majority of time there is another service behind that will pick up passengers. It may be uncomfortably busy,may require re-routing and lateness but people will get to their destination. The issue is Grand Central's limited service, lack of provision of alternatives outside the railway (e.g. taxis or hotels), on the ground staff to assist, and lack of cooperation with/from other operators.

 

[Starmill]

I believe Metrolink are also dealt with by Stagecoach from York Roc.

Keolis-Amey keep chopping and changing between CMAC and Stagecoach - though the latter were historically very close with them of course. I was getting at them wanting the replacement though rather than them being the replacement service. There's definitely been a meaningful improvement in disruption related ticket acceptance over the past few years for rail tickets to be accepted on Metrolink and Metrolink tickets to be accepted on trains. It used to be very unusual but now obviously a good bit of effort has been put in on both sides, more similar to how WMM/WMT work.

 

[Horizon22]

I appreciate that there may be less coaches and more strain on drivers, but to suggest that no vehicles, whatsoever, nor support staff could be found within 1 hour or so of Northallerton (so that's every bus and coach operator in Darlington, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, York, Leeds, Harrogate etc), simply doesn't wash.

You'd be surprised. On a Sunday and after significant incidents I am aware TOC controls have tried 50+ miles and got a few minibuses and that's it.

At the end of the day bus drivers have to be available at extremely short-notice to come and do rail replacement on their day off (a weekend afternoon too) and it has to be worth their while, something the TOC can't/won't be able to afford.

 

[Starmill]

In what sense? Many train faults mean the service is no longer allowed in passenger service as it would be unsafe otherwise.

The vast majority of time there is another service behind that will pick up passengers. It may be uncomfortably busy,may require re-routing and lateness but people will get to their destination. The issue is Grand Central's limited service, lack of provision of alternatives outside the railway (e.g. taxis or hotels), on the ground staff to assist, and lack of cooperation with/from other operators.

I think the reality is that GC need full-time contingency road transport in the North East at least, with them picking up the attendant costs of that. It's probably cheaper for them to do that than it is for them to acquire additional 125mph capable units!

 

[Horizon22]

I think the reality is that GC need full-time contingency road transport in the North East at least, with them picking up the attendant costs of that. It's probably cheaper for them to do that than it is for them to acquire additional 125mph capable units!

Ideally we'd have "full-time contingency" in every aspect of the railway, for a 'just in-case' scenario but in any industry - not just the railway - you'd be laughed out of the room.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the reality is that GC need full-time contingency road transport in the North East at least, with them picking up the attendant costs of that. It's probably cheaper for them to do that than it is for them to acquire additional 125mph capable units!

It's also totally possible - for a long time WMT had a standby coach for the Marston Vale, and that's a basket case branch line. They seem to still have something in place to get one fairly quickly - almost never is a cancellation not covered by road.

OK, they need one and GC would need maybe 6-8, but if they are there ready...

 

[800001]

You'd be surprised. On a Sunday and after significant incidents I am aware TOC controls have tried 50+ miles and got a few minibuses and that's it.

At the end of the day bus drivers have to be available at extremely short-notice to come and do rail replacement on their day off (a weekend afternoon too) and it has to be worth their while, something the TOC can't/won't be able to afford.

Add in the fact, if going into London (and Edinburgh), coaches need to be clean air compliant.

I know the clean air rule has resulted in LNER having to stop some replacement coaches at Haymarket rather than Waverley.

 

[Horizon22]

It's also totally possible - for a long time WMT had a standby coach for the Marston Vale, and that's a basket case branch line. They seem to still have something in place to get one fairly quickly - almost never is a cancellation not covered by road.

OK, they need one and GC would need maybe 6-8, but if they are there ready...

Very different to getting a long-term contract for a resource as opposed to an ad-hoc, last minute contingency arrangement. Although I appreciate the argument is that GC seemingly require this every weekend - although what is their average weekend performance for cancellations?

 

[Starmill]

Ideally we'd have "full-time contingency" in every aspect of the railway, for a 'just in-case' scenario but in any industry - not just the railway - you'd be laughed out of the room.

If that's the case that a few tens of thousands of pounds per month on buses would sink GC's entire business, then unfortunately they will be going to into liquidation sooner rather than later no matter what, so they better get on with it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2024 ==

Very different to getting a long-term contract for a resource as opposed to an ad-hoc, last minute contingency arrangement. Although I appreciate the argument is that GC seemingly require this every weekend - although what is their average weekend performance for cancellations?

They seem to require it multiple times per month, not on an unexpected / unforseen basis. More than enough to justify a long term contract.