Grand Central Abandoning Customers

[Horizon22]

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 ==

I meant for all areas of possible contingency, although having some slack and scope to deal with the unexpected is good and prudent business practice.

 

[deltic]

One key difference - Ryanair is VERY punctual and reliable.

In 2023, Ryanair had a cancellation rate of 0.47% - very impressive and 19.12% delayed flights, not so impressive.

 

[Topological]

In 2023, Ryanair had a cancellation rate of 0.47% - very impressive and 19.12% delayed flights, not so impressive.

Not so impressive until you see BA had 37.33% delayed over 15 minutes. To be fair, BA are dealing with Heathrow more than Ryanair have to, but it is still good to have context for statistics.

Given how many flights Ryanair operate and how tight their schedules are, the performance achieved is very good.

People do need a lot more support to claim delay repay though. I understand the railway is not keen to pay out, but it would be good if posters could be placed at all stations (I think most websites already have delay repay quite central).

 

[Starmill]

Not so impressive until you see BA had 37.33% delayed over 15 minutes. To be fair, BA are dealing with Heathrow more than Ryanair have to, but it is still good to have context for statistics.

Given how many flights Ryanair operate and how tight their schedules are, the performance achieved is very good.

People do need a lot more support to claim delay repay though. I understand the railway is not keen to pay out, but it would be good if posters could be placed at all stations (I think most websites already have delay repay quite central).

The customer can leave a two hour grace period and genuinely rely on Ryanair. Unfortunately rail services generally can't be relied on like that, outside of maybe c2c and (hopefully in the near future) Merseyrail.

 

[AdamWW]

Not so impressive until you see BA had 37.33% delayed over 15 minutes. To be fair, BA are dealing with Heathrow more than Ryanair have to, but it is still good to have context for statistics

is this BA short haul or all flights?

Comparing long haul flights wouldn't be a very reasonable comparison in my view - far more chance to be affected by weather over the Atlantic and liable to end up going round in circles waiting for a crack at the runway in Heathrow.

Though I don't suppose any of this has much to do with Grand Central.

 

[sheff1]

The customer can leave a two hour grace period and genuinely rely on Ryanair.

I don't know which customer that is, but certainly not me. After multiple 2 hour plus delays coupled with very poor associated customer sevice I ditched Ryanair years ago, other than very occasional distress purchases, and have not regretted the decision. Not just an historical thing either, on my most recent trip to Gothenburg (on time both ways with BA) I saw the Ryanair UK flights in both directions were showing as delayed, with the outward one over 2 hours down.

Saying that, seems Ryanair were streets ahead of Grand Central judging by various reports on here. As others have said, if GC can't afford to meet their legal obligations they should not be operating.

 

[johntea]

Good luck with getting a refund. I've certainly heard of the much praised Hull Trains doing this and then not refunding passengers.

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


In this case, the fact they haven't made alternative arrangements is unforgivable

If Grand Central start to drag their feet regarding a refund on the new ticket purchased would another option be to initiate a chargeback via your bank?

Although it may be complicated as the new ticket would be a contract between you and LNER/alternative TOC rather than Grand Central presumably (not sure if booking said ticket via the Grand Central booking engine would make any difference however...)

 

[Starmill]

If Grand Central start to drag their feet regarding a refund on the new ticket purchased would another option be to initiate a chargeback via your bank?

Although it may be complicated as the new ticket would be a contract between you and LNER/alternative TOC rather than Grand Central presumably (not sure if booking said ticket via the Grand Central booking engine would make any difference however...)

For practical reasons it's usually a nightmare trying to get a refund on a replacement service via chargeback. It's arguably not the correct route and you can't lodge a chargeback for higher than the face value of the purchase.

If you just wanted a straight refund on the GC ticket as unused due to the disruption, and this wasn't agreed in a timely manner, chargeback would then become an appropriate next step.

 

[crablab]

For practical reasons it's usually a nightmare trying to get a refund on a replacement service via chargeback. It's arguably not the correct route and you can't lodge a chargeback for higher than the face value of the purchase.

I've answered this in another thread a while ago; it's simply not a valid chargeback reason.
There is no mechanism to recover damages for something outside the scope of the original transaction.

If you just wanted a straight refund on the GC ticket as unused due to the disruption, and this wasn't agreed in a timely manner, chargeback would then become an appropriate next step.

Exactly.
(Or for the service not provided, if you were abandoned half way through and they refused to pay out Delay Repay for whatever reason.)

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

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.

And as I keep pointing out, if I’m a PCV driver on a 45 hour rest period, you can offer me as much money as you want, but there’s no way I can work.

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.

An interesting point. Why is it ok for PCV drivers to be expected to turn up at short notice, forfeiting their plans, when train drivers have minimum requirements of how much notice they get for things like a change in start time? Is it just that train drivers have a better union?

 

[Towers]

An interesting point. Why is it ok for PCV drivers to be expected to turn up at short notice, forfeiting their plans, when train drivers have minimum requirements of how much notice they get for things like a change in start time? Is it just that train drivers have a better union?

It is surely because PCV drivers are horrendously underpaid and therefore more likely to be clamouring for overtime? Which, I suppose indirectly, could be linked to train drivers having a better union! Although of course plenty of bus drivers are in the RMT, who manage to get a very good deal for other railway grades. Nobody has to work of course, PCV drivers can turn down extra shifts just as railway staff can.

Again though, it also comes back to how rail replacement was provided historically, by small local outfits who could magically rustle up a coach or two and accompanying drivers at very short notice (legally or otherwise!); that resource just doesn’t exist like it used to.

 

[DJ_K666]

This is exactly why the Government's de-privatisation plans don't go far enough. If I'd been transport secretary we'd be back to the pre 1997 state, BR (sectorised).

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

It is surely because PCV drivers are horrendously underpaid and therefore more likely to be clamouring for overtime? Which, I suppose indirectly, could be linked to train drivers having a better union! Although of course plenty of bus drivers are in the RMT, who manage to get a very good deal for other railway grades. Nobody has to work of course, PCV drivers can turn down extra shifts just as railway staff can.

Again though, it also comes back to how rail replacement was provided historically, by small local outfits who could magically rustle up a coach or two and accompanying drivers at very short notice (legally or otherwise!); that resource just doesn’t exist like it used to.

For clarity, I used to work for those “small local outfits”, and everything we did was legal - too many ways to be caught out by the VI back then!

However, we used to have lots of part time drivers alongside our full timers. The full timers would generally do longer hires and tours, with the part timers covering the work they couldn’t then do. This meant that when it came to short notice RRB work, those part timers could choose to do some as overtime if there was a vehicle available. However, those part timers were generally people getting closer to retirement, or who did it for fun around another job as they could. The advent of driver CPC meant that a lot of those drivers simply gave up, so you ended up needing additional full timers to cover that work, but it’s financially better to have a smaller number of full timers to cover the expected work rather than having people around being spare (this sounds familiar doesn’t it ). As a result, because those drivers available are being used more intensively, there’s less hours available to do ad hoc work like RRBs.

 

[Starmill]

And as I keep pointing out, if I’m a PCV driver on a 45 hour rest period, you can offer me as much money as you want, but there’s no way I can work.

Of course. The reality is that there are not employed principally as drivers who are available to cover this work though, such as directors.

 

[riceuten]

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.

You can "understand" it - but it doesn't make it legal or morally acceptable

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.

Well, if this is the case, this means their business case is unworkable

 

[driverd]

An interesting point. Why is it ok for PCV drivers to be expected to turn up at short notice, forfeiting their plans, when train drivers have minimum requirements of how much notice they get for things like a change in start time? Is it just that train drivers have a better union?

My assumption was that the RRT providers (CMAC/FTS etc) had 24/7 stand-by coaches (their remit extends well beyond rail, so this isn't as silly as it may sound, especially when you consider how vast their client list is). I would have assumed something along the lines of strategically placed drivers and vehicles throughout the country, on the equivalent of paid permanent spare shifts.

It would appear, however, that this is not the case, possibly in a significant part because of the TOCs being unprepared to pay for it!

It does make me wonder if the franchise model disincentivises this. There's much duplication when it comes to road transport and, perhaps, if the industry wasn't so fragmented, a more joined up approach could be taken - eg: contracts to cover all train services in a geographical area, rather than separate contracts to each TOC.

None the less, I think the summary here is it could be done, if only the TOCs were prepared to pay (and it sounds as though it wouldn't be cheap). Seems like a bit of a theme, really, and a sad reflection of the realities of the railway in 2024.

 

[Bikeman78]

You'll be going nowhere echos through many liveries, at least other TOCs (besides Hull trains) had other stock to take their place. GC are in desperate need of new stock,

I remember the class 180s when they were new. Pleasant enough to travel on but you'd be happily going along at 125 and then there would be a sudden brake application. Usually resolved fairly quickly, in my experience, but still not ideal.

 

[43066]

My assumption was that the RRT providers (CMAC/FTS etc) had 24/7 stand-by coaches (their remit extends well beyond rail, so this isn't as silly as it may sound, especially when you consider how vast their client list is). I would have assumed something along the lines of strategically placed drivers and vehicles throughout the country, on the equivalent of paid permanent spare shifts.

Really? That hardly sounds like something any private company would find cost effective to offer. Given that these incidents can happen almost anywhere on the network you’d need vehicles and drivers stationed all over the country, and they would spend the majority of the time sitting idle.

The only feasible option at short notice is generally going to be to use taxis; and as we know that is location and time specific and can still take hours to arrange.

None the less, I think the summary here is it could be done, if only the TOCs were prepared to pay (and it sounds as though it wouldn't be cheap). Seems like a bit of a theme, really, and a sad reflection of the realities of the railway in 2024.

Which of course really means the taxpayer would need to pay for it. Quite simply it isn’t going to be feasible given the tiny number of people affected by these incidents relative to total passenger journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only feasible option at short notice is generally going to be to use taxis; and as we know that is location and time specific and can still take hours to arrange.

SWR's policy of "book your own and we will refund it" is probably one of the most sensible but I think they're the only TOC to openly publicise that. Uber etc make it easier for passengers to get their own than it was before. Obviously something needs to be in place for those who can't afford that, but a good proportion of adults could.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all rail replacement vehicles have to be accessible, even if more than one vehicle is used per timetabled departure. From reading other threads on this forum, there simply aren't enough operators or vehicles to go round.

 

[43066]

SWR's policy of "book your own and we will refund it" is probably one of the most sensible but I think they're the only TOC to openly publicise that. Uber etc make it easier for passengers to get their own than it was before. Obviously something needs to be in place for those who can't afford that, but a good proportion of adults could.

Yes, along with advising people not to travel, or to travel at a different time etc. it is a sensible strategy to damp down demand. Then you’ll be left with far fewer people to try and arrange transport for.

 

[DarloRich]

My assumption was that the RRT providers (CMAC/FTS etc) had 24/7 stand-by coaches (their remit extends well beyond rail, so this isn't as silly as it may sound, especially when you consider how vast their client list is). I would have assumed something along the lines of strategically placed drivers and vehicles throughout the country, on the equivalent of paid permanent spare shifts.

Surely the RRT provision companies will have a call off contract with lots of suppliers who are free to accept or refuse work as they wish. It will be mass rather than defined resource that is relied on to provide the service.

The problem comes when they all say no!

 

[duffield]

SWR's policy of "book your own and we will refund it" is probably one of the most sensible but I think they're the only TOC to openly publicise that. Uber etc make it easier for passengers to get their own than it was before. Obviously something needs to be in place for those who can't afford that, but a good proportion of adults could.

SWR's policy actually seems more flexible than that. Last Friday, they immediately arranged and paid for the mini-bus taxi that took myself and a few others from Farnham to Alton when the single track section was closed due to a track circuit failure.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

I bet those people would change their minds very quickly if it was their train that got cancelled and they had to wait an hour. Especially if that hour were at a station without a toilet.

 

[357]

Why is it ok for PCV drivers to be expected to turn up at short notice, forfeiting their plans, when train drivers have minimum requirements of how much notice they get for things like a change in start time? Is it just that train drivers have a better union?

I've been at work on a rest day less than 30 minutes after receiving a call before.

There's nothing stopping the bus drivers saying no, and nothing stopping train drivers saying no.

You're mistaking emergency cover with changes to rostered turns.

 

[43066]

There's nothing stopping the bus drivers saying no, and nothing stopping train drivers saying no.

So long as you don’t say “yes, I’ll do the job for 12, just let me finish my pint and I’ll be straight there”.

 

[nanstallon]

As a disabled passenger I know (and have argued) my rights before, this is sly on GC, although they're not unfamiliar with throwing in the towel, remember the WCML Blackpool plan?

Arguing 28.2 can be tricky and majority of customers wont know it sadly, I almost had a avanti guard fine me & a lady I was traveling with because I decided to use my 28.2 clause when the LNWR trent Valley services were mass cancelled. I got 2 sentences into the regs before he accepted and moved on.

Perhaps a lawyer who knows the rules and is prepared to tough it out with recalcitrant TOCs such as GC, could advertise for people to join in a class action. That would teach them a lesson that British style customer 'service' won't do.

 

[Whisky Papa]

I've been at work on a rest day less than 30 minutes after receiving a call before.

There's nothing stopping the bus drivers saying no, and nothing stopping train drivers saying no.

You're mistaking emergency cover with changes to rostered turns.

Certainly in my day as a bus driver - and I would suspect still the case in the majority of operators - there could be no change to a rostered turn without the driver's agreement. To change the roster itself would have required at least ten days notice, ideally two weeks where possible. The Short Term Plan changes needed in the rail industry would have been unthinkable.

 

[TUC]

SWR's policy of "book your own and we will refund it" is probably one of the most sensible but I think they're the only TOC to openly publicise that. Uber etc make it easier for passengers to get their own than it was before. Obviously something needs to be in place for those who can't afford that, but a good proportion of adults could.

That still amounts to passengers managing to find taxis that TOCs are too incompetent to find,

 

[Bletchleyite]

That still amounts to passengers managing to find taxis that TOCs are too incompetent to find,

It's a lot easier to sort an Uber/Bolt/whatever as an individual than it is to book them en masse. APIs are possible, but if your app is connected to your Uber the whole experience is just easier.

Certainly I am more than happy with this policy - "sort it out yourself and we WILL pay you back" is my preferred policy. Same with booking hotels, I have enough tools on my phone to book any room that's likely to be available nearby (including the very last resort of making a voice call). By far my preference over standing in a potentially very long queue.

If there are significant numbers of travel-savvy people who prefer that, letting them do so, assuring you'll cover the cost (up to specified limits if you want) and actually doing so is likely cheaper, when you consider staff time, than making them wait for you to do it.

The problem here, of course, is that GC have basically said "sort yourself out and we WON'T pay you back".