Grand Central Abandoning Customers

[driverd]

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.

But it's also economies of scale - if you had a few stand-by vehicles in key centres around the country, that are there to cater for rail disruption, diverted flights, bus/coach operators who lose a vehicle etc etc, it becomes reasonably cost effective and, quite a sensible line of resilience - and I'd imagine they would get called upon on a daily basis for rail alone (if TOCs actually provided the rail replacement transport when they were supposed to).

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.

But this isn't how it used to be done. As I've said before, less than 10 years ago, if there was major disruption affecting rail only (eg: not something like major flooding), we would routinely have numerous coaches and RRT coordinators on site within 1-2 hours - which to my mind is a good performance. The point I am (and keep) making is that it used to be done that way, and the market from rail is still (in theory) there. What seems to be lacking is the will to do it (and yes, I accept this now comes at a higher price point, one which TOCs in particular seem unprepared to meet).

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.

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.

Perhaps quoted the wrong way round, but this situation really infuriates me because it is far less cost effective. 200 people, booking even 100 taxis (assuming an average travelling group of 2), is going to be far, far more expensive (especially for long distance journeys) than booking 4 coaches - even assuming £1000 per vehicle at short notice.

Just a question to those in the know - in the case of short notice disruption as described by the OP, would all RRBs have to be accessible? Or would it be considered acceptable to supply the appropriate vehicles for the actual customers that need moving? Obviously pre-planned is different (though I suspect this is very much a moot point since, demonstrably, TOCs are willfully disregarding their obligations).

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

But it's also economies of scale - if you had a few stand-by vehicles in key centres around the country, that are there to cater for rail disruption, diverted flights, bus/coach operators who lose a vehicle etc etc, it becomes reasonably cost effective and, quite a sensible line of resilience - and I'd imagine they would get called upon on a daily basis for rail alone (if TOCs actually provided the rail replacement transport when they were supposed to).



But this isn't how it used to be done. As I've said before, less than 10 years ago, if there was major disruption affecting rail only (eg: not something like major flooding), we would routinely have numerous coaches and RRT coordinators on site within 1-2 hours - which to my mind is a good performance. The point I am (and keep) making is that it used to be done that way, and the market from rail is still (in theory) there. What seems to be lacking is the will to do it (and yes, I accept this now comes at a higher price point, one which TOCs in particular seem unprepared to meet).




Perhaps quoted the wrong way round, but this situation really infuriates me because it is far less cost effective. 200 people, booking even 100 taxis (assuming an average travelling group of 2), is going to be far, far more expensive (especially for long distance journeys) than booking 4 coaches - even assuming £1000 per vehicle at short notice.

Just a question to those in the know - in the case of short notice disruption as described by the OP, would all RRBs have to be accessible? Or would it be considered acceptable to supply the appropriate vehicles for the actual customers that need moving? Obviously pre-planned is different (though I suspect this is very much a moot point since, demonstrably, TOCs are willfully disregarding their obligations).

The bus/coach market is totally different from how it used to be, even just a few years ago. You can't compare 2024 with 2014.

It's a combination of factors, but one of the main things is stricter government regulations on buses being accessible and meeting certain standards - which ultimately means you need newer buses, which are both more expensive to buy and maintain. Rail Replacement used to have all manner of vehicles, from luxury coaches to double decker clapped out deathtraps - but at least it got you on the way.

You've also got emissions regulations in some areas, meaning huge extra charges if your bus/coach isn't the very latest in clean engine technology - which, again, means fleets have been reduced, and more costs going up there.

The other factor I think is significant is that there has been considerable consolidation in the coach market - lots of one man and his coach operations have gone/retired etc or been swallowed up in mergers/acquisitions as the costs become unbearable for smaller suppliers.

There's even more regulations on the way around rail replacement vehicles needing to be fitted with digital passenger information systems - which has already proved so impractical, the government has had to delay it's mandatory introduction.

TOCs have huge budgets and bills for rail replacement, but just like the taxis, it isn't a question of money - the entire market is knackered.

 

[driverd]

The bus/coach market is totally different from how it used to be, even just a few years ago. You can't compare 2024 with 2014.

...

Without quoting your whole reply, thank you very much for such a detailed and informative response. I didn't realise that the market itself had shrunk so dramatically.

Is there any meaningful way forward, do you think? For instance, dedicated RRB suppliers or perhaps even TOCs taking the provision in house (If these are silly ideas, I'd love to know why)?

 

[Towers]

Without quoting your whole reply, thank you very much for such a detailed and informative response. I didn't realise that the market itself had shrunk so dramatically.
(
Is there any meaningful way forward, do you think? For instance, dedicated RRB suppliers or perhaps even TOCs taking the provision in house (If these are silly ideas, I'd love to know why)?

One way ahead may be to reconsider the provision of services when routes are closed. There was for a long time a general feeling in some quarters that the industry has moved to a position where buses were the default, easy option, rather than looking at diverting trains or being a bit creative with rail alternatives. Clearly the current climate is no longer supporting that approach, with bus provision proving unreliable even for planned works. It isn’t always possible of course, but it may warrant closer scrutiny as a viable alternative going forwards.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The bus/coach market is totally different from how it used to be, even just a few years ago. You can't compare 2024 with 2014.

It's a combination of factors, but one of the main things is stricter government regulations on buses being accessible and meeting certain standards - which ultimately means you need newer buses, which are both more expensive to buy and maintain. Rail Replacement used to have all manner of vehicles, from luxury coaches to double decker clapped out deathtraps - but at least it got you on the way.

You've also got emissions regulations in some areas, meaning huge extra charges if your bus/coach isn't the very latest in clean engine technology - which, again, means fleets have been reduced, and more costs going up there.

The other factor I think is significant is that there has been considerable consolidation in the coach market - lots of one man and his coach operations have gone/retired etc or been swallowed up in mergers/acquisitions as the costs become unbearable for smaller suppliers.

There's even more regulations on the way around rail replacement vehicles needing to be fitted with digital passenger information systems - which has already proved so impractical, the government has had to delay it's mandatory introduction.

TOCs have huge budgets and bills for rail replacement, but just like the taxis, it isn't a question of money - the entire market is knackered.

I also think bus replacement can be impractical for some services especially at peak where you have queues of trains going into London terminals all full so approx 500 or 600 passengers. That's about 10 busses a train, when an incident happens then getting 2 tran loads of replacement busses is impractical, 20 coaches.

Back to Grand Central though, there does need to be the equivalent of airline enforcement in payment of hotels or alternative transportation. I also think the delay repay system should be overhauled to not paying refunds for delay but cancelling services should be made prohibitively expensive. Lots of delays are outside of the TOCs control but cancelling is mostly within the TOCs control. No train = not enough spare trains, No crew = not enough crew on standby, infrastructure issues = delay but train can still run unless NR takes a possession then NR cover the costs.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Without quoting your whole reply, thank you very much for such a detailed and informative response. I didn't realise that the market itself had shrunk so dramatically.

Is there any meaningful way forward, do you think? For instance, dedicated RRB suppliers or perhaps even TOCs taking the provision in house (If these are silly ideas, I'd love to know why)?

Hopefully with a central "guiding mind" issues like route and traction knowledge for train crew becomes less of an issue and viable diversion routes are used instead, with buses as a last resort.

Totally bizarrely it's often cheaper at the moment to replace a train completely with a bus (assuming you can find one) then divert a train over any significant distance.

It also solves the accessibility issues if there's simply no bus involved, so a diverted train is generally better for those with disabilities too.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

One way ahead may be to reconsider the provision of services when routes are closed. There was for a long time a general feeling in some quarters that the industry has moved to a position where buses were the default, easy option, rather than looking at diverting trains or being a bit creative with rail alternatives. Clearly the current climate is no longer supporting that approach, with bus provision proving unreliable even for planned works. It isn’t always possible of course, but it may warrant closer scrutiny as a viable alternative going forwards.

Re-routing trains isn't the option it used to be as most lines are at or near capacity, just simply there are no paths to divert the required capacity trains, take Norwich to London, you could loco haul the 745s via Ely but no capacity at Ely or down to Liverpool Street so although extra services are provided with the 755 it's very limited.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Back to Grand Central though, there does need to be the equivalent of airline enforcement in payment of hotels or alternative transportation. I also think the delay repay system should be overhauled to not paying refunds for delay but cancelling services should be made prohibitively expensive. Lots of delays are outside of the TOCs control but cancelling is mostly within the TOCs control. No train = not enough spare trains, No crew = not enough crew on standby, infrastructure issues = delay but train can still run unless NR takes a possession then NR cover the costs.

You don't want the airline approach. Most airlines, even the likes of BA, make the process so drawn out with very, very dubious rejection reasons, and literally force you to issue a claim in the County Court or seek adjudication at an alternative dispute resolution provider - it takes months. It's why so many third party claim companies exist.

Even once you win your claim, they rarely pay up and you have to go through the hassle of getting bailiffs to enforce the judgement. If they haven't got a UK office or assets, you're stuck.

I'm also pretty sure that their delay reasons and records are downright falsified or manipulated to such an extent that they only serve to assist the airline. At least on rail, you have fairly independent data sources.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

You don't want the airline approach. Most airlines, even the likes of BA, make the process so drawn out with very, very dubious rejection reasons, and literally force you to issue a claim in the County Court or seek adjudication at an alternative dispute resolution provider - it takes months. It's why so many third party claim companies exist.

Even once you win your claim, they rarely pay up and you have to go through the hassle of getting bailiffs to enforce the judgement. If they haven't got a UK office or assets, you're stuck.

I'm also pretty sure that their delay reasons and records are downright falsified or manipulated to such an extent that they only serve to assist the airline. At least on rail, you have fairly independent data sources.

While true when they cancel in advance, when you're at the airport they tend to book hotels etc for you and the rail companies should be doing that too rather than the customer paying in the hope of reclamation

 

[Horizon22]

Is there any meaningful way forward, do you think? For instance, dedicated RRB suppliers or perhaps even TOCs taking the provision in house (If these are silly ideas, I'd love to know why)?

The best way would be if/when GBR happens to have a centralised rail replacement department that coordinates both a) rail replacement with planned horizons (I.e. engineering works) b) rail replacement for fixed term (e.g. emergency engineering works for several weeks) and c) rail replacement for ad-hoc serious disruption.

They might have a few “hubs” around the country but it would be easy enough for a TOC to contract and state the requirements although I still think you’ll never been the efficiency of an individual / local station team finding the taxis they need.

The centralised approach sort of happens at places like FTS (First Travel Solutions), but even then you still can’t magic up rail replacement vehicles at certain times of the day no matter how much you try as well as the impracticality of trying to move just 1 train load of passengers at short-notice although it can be done - see this thread just today for Preston / Lancaster,

I do think passenger expectations and reality will struggle to meet here though.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

While true when they cancel in advance, when you're at the airport they tend to book hotels etc for you and the rail companies should be doing that too rather than the customer paying in the hope of reclamation

Someone needs to tell BA that then! Out of 6 times I've had a problem, they've only arranged a hotel once - the rest of the time it was expected that I pay myself and claim it back. Admittedly, they did reimburse me.

They have much the same issue as the railway. If severe weather shuts Heathrow, which it does from time to time, and huge numbers of flights get cancelled, no matter what arrangements you have in place, there's simply not enough hotels for everyone.

One flight being cancelled, they can probably just about manage. Anything more than that, or involving other airlines, and you're on your own.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Someone needs to tell BA that then! Out of 6 times I've had a problem, they've only arranged a hotel once - the rest of the time it was expected that I pay myself and claim it back. Admittedly, they did reimburse me.

They have much the same issue as the railway. If severe weather shuts Heathrow, which it does from time to time, and huge numbers of flights get cancelled, no matter what arrangements you have in place, there's simply not enough hotels for everyone.

One flight being cancelled, they can probably just about manage. Anything more than that, or involving other airlines, and you're on your own.

Funny enough I was making a similar point further up, capacity to actually arrange something is always going to be limited in the event of more than 1 trainload disrupted

 

[yorkie]

Sounds like a candidate for a super-consumer complaint and/or a group legal action to me....

If any legal firms are looking to take action, they are welcome to email [email protected], and we can put them in touch with experts in the field to assist any in any such action.

 

[GoneSouth]

Uber etc make it easier for passengers to get their own than it was before.

Doubt there’s a lot of Uber available in Northallerton

 

[Bikeman78]

There's even more regulations on the way around rail replacement vehicles needing to be fitted with digital passenger information systems - which has already proved so impractical, the government has had to delay it's mandatory introduction.

This sounds like a disaster in the making. What problem is it trying to solve? What's wrong with the driver pointing out to the passengers that the bus has arrived at a given location? The likely result is even fewer buses available for rail replacement, so everyone loses.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This sounds like a disaster in the making. What problem is it trying to solve? What's wrong with the driver pointing out to the passengers that the bus has arrived at a given location? The likely result is even fewer buses available for rail replacement, so everyone loses.

Presumably for deaf passengers (or those wearing headphones). Possibly also an issue on double-deckers. (Just guessing.)

 

[thedbdiboy]

And likewise for watchdogs/regulators that cannot fulfill their supposed jobs of protecting consumers.

Transport Focus (like Ofcom and Ofwat) appears to be designed as "placeholder" regulator - their main purpose being to exist and so prevent anyone from trying to set up anything more effective.

Transport Focus seem inordinately pleased with themselves when they politely to ask a seriously-misbehaving TOC to sort out a problem, and end up with a one-off remedy that puts an individual complainant back to a sensible position. But how often do we hear them securing a promise to a fundamental change in behaviour?

Transport Focus is not (and never has been) a 'Regulator'. It's existence derives from the 1962 Transport Act as a passenger representative body which crucially has no power to 'make' a TOC (or BR before it) do anything. The ORR (Office of Road and Rail) is the official industry regulator. There is also now the Rail Ombudsman. It's all a bit messy and steeped in historical events, the current Government plans to streamline it by creating a Passenger Standards Authority. Although the detail of this isn't clear yet it appears to be intended to roll up the Ombudsman, the ORR's consumer regulation role and Transport Focus' rail role into a single statutory organisation.

 

[TUC]

TOCs do have these arrangements and often pay a premium for them.

However, individual taxi drivers will often refuse work booked under them, as they want payment immediately, and not long into the future after a purchase order / invoice etc has worked through the system. I suspect the taxi firms will also be taking a cut.

Especially when desperate passengers stranded at stations will be throwing cash around to get home.

TOCs aren't doing this on the cheap either - they spend a fortune on alternative transport, but it's just not attractive for the individual drivers.

With the best will in the world, even a TOC Managing Director would struggle to put these sorts of charges on a credit/charge card - you're talking £tens of thousands in a very short space of time, during mass disruption. These credit limits aren't unlimited.

The amounts aren't put on a charge card. They're put on the accounts already linked to the app.

It does feel in this discussion, yet again, that whenever someone points to a solution that operates elsewhere the rail industry responds with 'can't be done. We're different'. I find in my own job that whenever an organisation says 'we're different', as soon as the facts are checked the response is usually 'you're really not'.

 

[Paul Duck]

Feel sorry for the 1 member of staff at Northallerton that suddenly had 100 odd passengers dumped on her with no ticket acceptance and them all baying for blood. I'm sure someone from GC will be in touch to apologise and thank her for having to sort them all out.

There is certainly no UBER in Northallerton. I've been asked few times this year about, 'where is UBER?'

 

[43066]

My point is that passengers are apparently expected to be able to magic taxis out of thin air at short notice-and many do, showing that where the will is there, it can be done.

No, the advice is generally also to use other means of transport or delay travel - so many won’t be on the train at all (having used other routes). Of those who order taxis, they will be spread between various platforms rather than all trying to use taxis ordered by the TOC (by which staff exactly?) via Cmac or similar.

As said above, at the very least there should be an app passengers are given access to, for them to find and book taxis, and for these to be directly charged to the TOC. That avoids passengers being expected to have sufficient resources to both pay for a taxi and then wait to get the money back.

And you have the expertise to know that an app like that can be produced *just like that*, do you?

Passengers can use commercially available apps, Uber, Bolt etc. all of which generate receipts. Why waste money reinventing the wheel? The majority of train travellers will be able to afford a taxi which is then reimbursed - even if it’s just shoving on a credit card and claim back with no bother. That then frees up TOC staff to book for those few who for what ever reason can’t.

It’s easy to look for reasons to complain but you clearly don’t understand the logistics, nor have experience of mass disruption events. I also doubt you’ll be happy to pay more in fares or taxes to employ more staff to stand by the book taxis “just in case”, to have armies of vehicles standing by up also down the country “just in case” or to develop pointless apps that will only benefit a tiny (often hypothetical) minority.

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

It does feel in this discussion, yet again, that whenever someone points to a solution that operates elsewhere the rail industry responds with 'can't be done. We're different'. I find in my own job that whenever an organisation says 'we're different', as soon as the facts are checked the response is usually 'you're really not'.

And yet again it feels like you’re assuming that you somehow know better than those with direct experience of the issues at hand, despite not having any yourself, and are just criticising for the sake of it.

 

[londonbridge]

The most serious delay I’ve had involving the airlines was when I was on a group tour to the US. About three weeks before departure they changed the return flights. The original itinerary with American Airlines was a lunchtime flight from Atlanta to Miami and then overnight to Gatwick. New schedule was early morning from Atlanta to Miami and then a lunchtime flight to Boston before the overnighter home. First leg went okay but the second was delayed to the extent that it became clear we would miss the connection at Boston. We were reassured the flight would be held but when we landed it was gone and our bags were being unloaded. After some arguing they said they could get a few of us on a Virgin Atlantic flight which was leaving in half an hour and the rest would be spending the night in Boston. Those of us getting the Virgin flight then had to run three floors downstairs, find our bags, run back upstairs, check them in and board. I made it with about five minutes to spare, never found out if the others slept at the airport or were given hotels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Feel sorry for the 1 member of staff at Northallerton that suddenly had 100 odd passengers dumped on her with no ticket acceptance and them all baying for blood. I'm sure someone from GC will be in touch to apologise and thank her for having to sort them all out.

There is certainly no UBER in Northallerton. I've been asked few times this year about, 'where is UBER?'

Of course if GC could be bothered they could ring the local taxi firm (not hard to Google that) and ask them to send as many Hackney carriages as they've got because there's a load of potentially nice long distance fares going.

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

This sounds like a disaster in the making. What problem is it trying to solve? What's wrong with the driver pointing out to the passengers that the bus has arrived at a given location? The likely result is even fewer buses available for rail replacement, so everyone loses.

It's something that makes absolute sense for stage carriage buses - makes them orders of magnitude easier to use when in an unfamiliar area, even for those without disabilities.

The problem is if I recall legal precedent set a few years back that considers RRBs the same as stage carriage buses, which they're very much not. There could do with being legislation which turns them back into private hires legally, though I doubt it's a Parliamentary precedent it could perhaps be sneaked into the GBR enabling legislation. The issue is similar to the accessibility one - as long as the OPERATION is accessible (e.g. a wheelchair taxi is provided on demand to any wheelchair user so they are never required to wait longer than an able bodied passenger) there is no need for all individual vehicles to be so, unlike for a stage carriage bus operation which is not managed in the same way and you do want wheelchair users to be able to show up and be guaranteed to board (aside from if there are already other wheelchair users in the spaces or the bus is simply completely full).

 

[43066]

Of course if GC could be bothered they could ring the local taxi firm (not hard to Google that) and ask them to send as many Hackney carriages as they've got because there's a load of potentially nice long distance fares going.

“Local” is relative, and the answer might well be none as a lot of drivers won’t want a long drive, and an equally long empty return trip, when they could earn the same by staying local and doing multiple short trips.

 

[harz99]

Feel sorry for the 1 member of staff at Northallerton that suddenly had 100 odd passengers dumped on her with no ticket acceptance and them all baying for blood. I'm sure someone from GC will be in touch to apologise and thank her for having to sort them all out.

There is certainly no UBER in Northallerton. I've been asked few times this year about, 'where is UBER?'

Quite, and that single staff member works for Transpennine, not GC nor LNER, so will be in no position to do much more than give similar travel advice to that from GC themselves, unless Transpennine Control give instructions to the contrary.

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



@43066 Yep, you get it, @Bletchleyite obviously doesn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite, and that single staff member works for Transpennine, not GC nor LNER, so will be in no position to do much more than give similar travel advice to that from GC themselves, unless Transpennine Control give instructions to the contrary.

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

Yep, you get it, @Bletchleyite obviously doesn't.

Where did I say that person should do it? GC Control should do it, and issue timely and accurate information to that member of staff via TPE Control.

 

[harz99]

Where did I say that person should do it? GC Control should do it, and issue timely and accurate information to that member of staff via TPE Control.

You didn't, that reply was to another post which got auto merged into one. I've amended it to try and make more sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You didn't, that reply was to another post which got auto merged into one. I've amended it to try and make more sense.

Either way, I definitely get it - "it" is that no company should be allowed to trade without respecting the legal requirements and contractual requirements of doing so, because that is both illegal/unlawful (depending on whether the law is infringed or a contract) and immoral.

If it isn't possible within financial or other constraints to trade within those requirements, the company must close forthwith. There is no other right and proper option.

It is literally that simple. My view remains that GC should be shut down, and has been for a very long time - they have done this many times over the past years. If they were, perhaps someone else would come in and do things properly, e.g. FirstGroup who already have extensive ECML Open Access operations with Lumo and Hull Trains (not that they're perfect, but they're better than this).

 

[harz99]

Somebody asked upthread about what the issue was with 180114 at Northallerton, still no wiser, however the unit hasn't been out since it occurred so not a quick fix by the looks of things.

I notice that 180107 failed this morning at Halifax on the second London service, a brake problem according to RTT, and seems to have returned to Crofton.

Maybe there should be a specific thread for GC train failures and Cancellations?

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

Either way, I definitely get it - "it" is that no company should be allowed to trade without respecting the legal requirements and contractual requirements of doing so, because that is both illegal/unlawful (depending on whether the law is infringed or a contract) and immoral.

If it isn't possible within financial or other constraints to trade within those requirements, the company must close forthwith. There is no other right and proper option.

It is literally that simple. My view remains that GC should be shut down, and has been for a very long time - they have done this many times over the past years. If they were, perhaps someone else would come in and do things properly, e.g. FirstGroup who already have extensive ECML Open Access operations with Lumo and Hull Trains (not that they're perfect, but they're better than this).

You obviously don't, "it" was about taxis and their availability.

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

 

[yorkie]

It is literally that simple. My view remains that GC should be shut down, and has been for a very long time - they have done this many times over the past years. If they were, perhaps someone else would come in and do things properly, e.g. FirstGroup who already have extensive ECML Open Access operations with Lumo and Hull Trains (not that they're perfect, but they're better than this).

This proposal belongs in a new thread; feel free to link to it from here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This proposal belongs in a new thread; feel free to link to it from here.

Here you go: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-grand-central-be-shut-down.275228/