Hull Trains cancellations due to chronic shortage of available rolling stock

Failed Unit · 15 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
This has got nothing to do with the reliability of the trains, as I've said! It was a severe weather event that caused the problem, and it affected a great many transport operators, not just HT. Many vehicles were damaged by the weather in the weeks that followed, not just HT. I remember it well. It isn't relevant in this thread.

What I said was that the typical customer is little interested in the tittle tattle of local news, who have in any case not even clearly highlighted the problem as you claim it. There have been far more articles about disruption on Northern than on HT. Do people read them and come to the conclusion that Northern are a budget operator and their trains break down? No, because that would be illogical. The typical customer is likely to book with trainline purely because they're popular. They could book with anyone, but nearly everyone has heard of trainline and those who travel infrequently or never will know their name.

It doesn't really matter one way or another though. There's no evidence that what you've said here:

is anything close to the reality.
HT are simply not selling themselves as anything akin to cheap, budget, low quality or unreliable.

Could you please highlight exactly where I have claimed that they are cheap, budget or low quality? You have decided this yourself not got it from anything I have posted.

Look up the dictionary definition of unreliable? Can you really dispute that if they fail to operate trains because they are out of service the are unreliable to who needs to use them? Does it matter how this is caused?

As for your point about northern they are unreliable because they can’t operate the service because of lack of staff. I would be very interested to know how this relates to trains breaking down?

Anyway you clearly have your own agenda and refuse to believe that Hull trains reliably over the past 12 months is not acceptable. I guess the people that resigned from Hull trains in the spring just left the company for fun rather than they didn’t believe the companies performance was good enough.

As for you view of the typical customer. You can’t actually back up your opinion with any facts. I just don’t agree with your view. We could both be wrong.

One last thing - I know you don’t read posts properly but I have highlighted that Hull trains cl180 trains are actually more reliable than the class 700s GTR operate. They just don’t have enough of them.

RailUK Forums

Taunton · 15 Oct 2018

How did the HT pax react?

More politely than I would have done. It's apparently £97 single KX-Doncaster for the cheapest Super Extra Bargain or whatever it's called. Which if you look above is not far off what I've paid, pro-rata by mileage, for my Anytime to Leeds.

Someone else showing an HT ticket was given an Unpaid Fare Notice, which means if they get into protracted discussion with Hull Trains the bailiffs will presumably be coming calling. What an advert for rail travel.

HullRailMan · 15 Oct 2018

Most HT services are heavily reserved and a fair number over the past few weeks have been advertised as being fully reserved (excluding coach E which is always left unreserved). So, despite the well publicised issues they had earlier in the year, they clearly don't have a problem filling their trains. I would suggest that the same will happen following this period of disruption. Regular or business travellers may think twice about using them until reliability is bedded back in but occasional leisure travellers, who probably make up the bulk of their passengers, will likely book up seats as usual with the assistance no doubt of some heavy discounting in the short term.

ainsworth74 · 15 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
HT are simply not selling themselves as anything akin to cheap, budget, low quality or unreliable.

Yes I'm not quite sure where that's come from. There have been comments on this thread by various members which seem to suggest that HT is a budget operator or, at the very least, cheaper than LNER. This is something that HT have never, to my knowledge, advertised themselves as being (in the way that Grand Central did when they first started out).

One need only look at the fares from Hull to London to see this:

Anytime Return
Route: Any Permitted = £238.00
Route: Hull Trains Only = £221.00

Off-Peak Return
Route: Any Permitted = £180.50
Route: Hull Trains Only = £154.50

Super Off-Peak Return
Route: Any Permitted = £110.00
Route: Hull Trains Only = £105.00

I mean they are cheaper to be sure but these are hardly the fares of budget operator or even that substantial of a saving over the Any Permitted!

It's a similar picture to be honest with advance fares. Looking at a random date in mid-November you can get to London on the first direct HT arriving 0915 for £63.00 whilst the only equivalent LNER option involves changing at Doncaster and arriving at 0851 whilst paying £106.50 for the privilege. A nice saving! That being said the direct LNER arriving into London at 0953 is cheaper than the HT service at £54.00!

But once you leave the morning peak both the direct HTs and the LNER with a change at Doncaster are around the same price! For example the 1309 HT arrival is £28.00 whilst there is an LNER option arriving at 1301 is £29.00 (you start to see why they are popular, why change when the arrival time and price are so similar?).

HT are by no stretch of the imagination a budget operator and do not, in general, offer a substantial saving over the LNER+Connections option.

I am confused where this idea has come from!

robbeech · 15 Oct 2018

Failed Unit said:
It was so long ago I don’t remember now. They could have being 125mph paths by then. But as we see on East coast 110mph class 90s are not killing the service to Leeds so maybe it could keep close enough to time it wasn’t bothering anyone.

I think whilst subtle, there are differences. The 90s are faster to accelerate than the 91s, as are glaciers so there's a time bonus here that realistically makes up a fair bit of the time that is lost on the 125mph sections to Leeds / Newark / Wherever they take them. If we compared an 86 to a 180 (that works) then we are going to see The 180 has the speed advantage AND the acceleration advantage.
Its worth noting that i'm not sure of how those particular timing loads work. Does a 180 timed train get given less time from King's Cross with first stop Grantham than a 91 timed load which will be slower without question?

Starmill · 15 Oct 2018

Failed Unit said:
Look up the dictionary definition of unreliable? Can you really dispute that if they fail to operate trains because they are out of service the are unreliable to who needs to use them? Does it matter how this is caused?

Your claim is as follows:

Failed Unit said:
Surely normal people in Hull think wait a second the HT service is unreliable- the connection is more likely to get me to London even if it cost a little more.

I'm shocked that I need to repeat this so many times. The first clause in your sentence above is your claim that the people of East Yorkshire already thought (and not in response to the evens of the past few days, which you clarified) that there is something about HT specifically (i.e. not something like the weather, which is universal and affects everyone) that is 'unreliable'. The second clause is your claim that because of this, the people of East Yorkshire viewed LNER as more reliable than HT, and should therefore have booked them instead. This just isn't true. There is nothing to suggest that the potential customers are given or should have gone to look for evidence about whether or not they can rely on HT or LNER more. Instead, drawing on the experience I have of my own journeys and assisting others with their bookings, people look it price, time, speed and number of changes when booking. HT wins on most of these, in most situations, for business travel between London and East Yorkshire. There was no pre-existing supposition that a connection at Doncaster is more reliable than HT.

Why would people think 'wait a second the service is unreliable I'd better book LNER as they're reliable'? There has been no good evidence of this for them to view! And why would they go looking in any case? People assume that, when they book a train ticket, they will be transported in accordence with their booking. I really don't see why that's controversial.

That things have change from hereon, very possibly. This is my concern.

Failed Unit · 15 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
Your claim is as follows:

I'm shocked that I need to repeat this so many times. The first clause in your sentence above is your claim that the people of East Yorkshire already thought (and not in response to the evens of the past few days, which you clarified) that there is something about HT specifically (i.e. not something like the weather, which is universal and affects everyone) that is 'unreliable'. The second clause is your claim that because of this, the people of East Yorkshire viewed LNER as more reliable than HT, and should therefore have booked them instead. This just isn't true. There is nothing to suggest that the potential customers are given or should have gone to look for evidence about whether or not they can rely on HT or LNER more. Instead, drawing on the experience I have of my own journeys and assisting others with their bookings, people look it price, time, speed and number of changes when booking. HT wins on most of these, in most situations, for business travel between London and East Yorkshire. There was no pre-existing supposition that a connection at Doncaster is more reliable than HT.

Why would people think 'wait a second the service is unreliable I'd better book LNER as they're reliable'? There has been no good evidence of this for them to view! And why would they go looking in any case? People assume that, when they book a train ticket, they will be transported in accordence with their booking. I really don't see why that's controversial.

That things have change from hereon, very possibly. This is my concern.

As I said you have your own agenda.

Compare the number % of cancellations on LNER and Hull trains. Hull trains is greater. This is published.

Hull trains 9.8% cancelled
LNER 3% cancelled.

If an LNER train is cancelled how long do you need to wait for the next one? (Yes a whole day if it is from Hull)

In March 2018 hull trains needed to cancel all their services because they have no serviceable rolling stock, we have the same position now. Has that ever happened to a franchised operating company? For whatever reasons.

Yes I know that statistics will be harder on HT because they have a smaller fleet and operate less services. GTR cancel more trains in a day then hull trains run.

But I simply can’t see how you can dispute that Hull trains are less reliable than LNER. They publish the figures on their own website that say this.

Do customers care. Some do some don’t. This one will return once they have demonstrated they can operate the service reliability. Just like I will return to GTR when they do.

Why would they look. Some people read the press / watch tv. Not everyone but it may amaze you that some people will be influenced by this years poor performance. This is the 3rd seriously reduced service in the last 12 months. December 2017, March 2018 and now.

A direct service is normally quicker, but not if you are forced on a bus, or required to change anyway. I personally chose reliably over price as getting to the destination at my required time matters most to me. I would pay a premium for this, the fact hull trains in the past offered a better service for less money was a bonus. Some leisure travelers don’t care. But they may value a seat - again not certain on the LNER service after HT turf you out a Doncaster.

Although we wont find agreement on if passengers care about the recent unreliable ht services. I am sure we both hope they can get back to the standards they were at 5 years ago quickly.

Starmill · 15 Oct 2018

Failed Unit said:
As I said you have your own agenda.

Quite. At the moment it is to challenge uninformed extrapolations!

Failed Unit said:
Compare the number % of cancellations on LNER and Hull trains. Hull trains is greater. This is published.

Hull trains 9.8% cancelled
LNER 3% cancelled.

And yet Period 6 PPM was pretty much exactly the same for both, with HT actually .1 of a percentage point better off. I'm not convinced that any of this comes to evidence for your point.

Failed Unit said:
In March 2018 hull trains needed to cancel all their services because they have no serviceable rolling stock, we have the same position now. Has that ever happened to a franchised operating company? For whatever reasons.

A shortage of available trains results in cancellations at franchised operators pretty much daily. There was a day in Summer where GWR had around half of the class 800s they needed in service available. That represented a far greater number of trains unavailable due to technical faults than 4.

Performance at HT this past few weeks was not good enough. I am not sure who could possibly argue with that, or who has. In addition, mitigation and alternative transport is also not working well enough at Hull Trains. Again I'm not sure who is arguing with that. Many people who have had their fingers burnt here, and those with people whom they know who tell them about their poor experience probably will see HT in the future in a worse light. Of course, this is a small number of people in any one day or week, but if this lasts for a long time then it could result in brand damage for HT. This is where the real concern lies.

700007 · 15 Oct 2018

A bit off topic, very crayonista and the answer is most likely no probably due to a clash with the leasing side of the HSTs and route clearance by Network Rail, but could GWR send a few 5 car 800s temporarily to Hull Trains until their own 802s enter service? This would allow the 180s to go off lease, allow familiarisation to happen much quicker and quickly improve the reputation of Hull Trains again so that they would not have to wait until late 2019 to see some substantial improvements, but seeing them closer to the other side of the new year ???

(covers head with a saucepan ready for attack)

Hadders · 15 Oct 2018

Taunton said:
You have to ask why is there a (it sounds considerable) LNER revenue haul from the HT passengers, who at least seem readily accommodated, but not from the Thameslink ones to Stevenage, who are preventing their mainstream passengers getting seats

Passengers travelling between Kings Cross and Stevenage have every right to use a LNER train. Tickets between Stevenage and London Terminals are routed:

Any Permitted
LNER Only

There is no GTR only option.

Failed Unit · 15 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
Quite. At the moment it is to challenge uninformed extrapolations!

And yet Period 6 PPM was pretty much exactly the same for both, with HT actually .1 of a percentage point better off. I'm not convinced that any of this comes to evidence for your point.

A shortage of available trains results in cancellations at franchised operators pretty much daily. There was a day in Summer where GWR had around half of the class 800s they needed in service available. That represented a far greater number of trains unavailable due to technical faults than 4.

Performance at HT this past few weeks was not good enough. I am not sure who could possibly argue with that, or who has. In addition, mitigation and alternative transport is also not working well enough at Hull Trains. Again I'm not sure who is arguing with that. Many people who have had their fingers burnt here, and those with people whom they know who tell them about their poor experience probably will see HT in the future in a worse light. Of course, this is a small number of people in any one day or week, but if this lasts for a long time then it could result in brand damage for HT. This is where the real concern lies.

Again don’t patronise me with “uninformed”.

Yes GWR did have a significant number of trains out of service in the summer. The number was greater than 4. But it is back to %.

If operator 1 has 4 trains and 4 trains out of service, they are going to be less reliable then operator 2 that has 50 trains and 20 are out of service.

Operator 1 does nothing. Operator 2 offers something.

This as we all know if why HT are suffering and perceived as unreliable- they don’t have enough slack in their fleet that if one train is having an exam the rest of the fleet must have 100% availablity. This doesn’t happen as often as it did with the 170s and 222s which were very reliable trains.

Starmill · 15 Oct 2018

Failed Unit said:
This doesn’t happen as often as it did with the 170s and 222s which were very reliable trains.

Quite why you think that the average person looking to travel from London to Hull thinks that this is relevant or even knows about it is beyond me. I'm not sure what you're now trying to say, but you've not recognised this so that's the end of the matter I think.

Failed Unit · 15 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
Quite why you think that the average person looking to travel from London to Hull thinks that this is relevant or even knows about it is beyond me. I'm not sure what you're now trying to say, but you've not recognised this so that's the end of the matter I think.

The class of train is irrelevant but this forum is for rail enthusiasts. The fact that HT is less reliable than it used to be does. Yes the average person probably won’t know (or care) the poor reliably is down to the decision to change rolling stock. But they will have noticed the decline in reliablity. Whether you like it or not some people will be influenced by the fact that for the 3rd time in 12 months the level of service offer is shocking. I agree they won’t care why they will just not travel or go for alternative methods if it keeps happening. HT don’t seem to indicate things will be back to the levels they want to offer until 2019.

You seem be ignoring the indisputable fact the HT are less reliable then they used be.

Clarence Yard · 15 Oct 2018

700007 said:
A bit off topic, very crayonista and the answer is most likely no probably due to a clash with the leasing side of the HSTs and route clearance by Network Rail, but could GWR send a few 5 car 800s temporarily to Hull Trains until their own 802s enter service? This would allow the 180s to go off lease, allow familiarisation to happen much quicker and quickly improve the reputation of Hull Trains again so that they would not have to wait until late 2019 to see some substantial improvements, but seeing them closer to the other side of the new year ???

(covers head with a saucepan ready for attack)

No, because the 800 units are not theirs to lend - they are not leased to GWR. As with the HST 2+5 option, even if they were available, you have to train crew in their operation and that doesn’t happen overnight.

The 180 units are on a fixed lease so you just can’t return them because you want to.

Elecman · 15 Oct 2018

matacaster said:
What is status pf 125mph 89001 - is it usable, could it help?

Not it’s u/s

bramling · 15 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
Your claim is as follows:

I'm shocked that I need to repeat this so many times. The first clause in your sentence above is your claim that the people of East Yorkshire already thought (and not in response to the evens of the past few days, which you clarified) that there is something about HT specifically (i.e. not something like the weather, which is universal and affects everyone) that is 'unreliable'. The second clause is your claim that because of this, the people of East Yorkshire viewed LNER as more reliable than HT, and should therefore have booked them instead. This just isn't true. There is nothing to suggest that the potential customers are given or should have gone to look for evidence about whether or not they can rely on HT or LNER more. Instead, drawing on the experience I have of my own journeys and assisting others with their bookings, people look it price, time, speed and number of changes when booking. HT wins on most of these, in most situations, for business travel between London and East Yorkshire. There was no pre-existing supposition that a connection at Doncaster is more reliable than HT.

Why would people think 'wait a second the service is unreliable I'd better book LNER as they're reliable'? There has been no good evidence of this for them to view! And why would they go looking in any case? People assume that, when they book a train ticket, they will be transported in accordence with their booking. I really don't see why that's controversial.

That things have change from hereon, very possibly. This is my concern.

Surely the debate is a little academic as it’s not like users from Selby, Howden, Brough and Hull (also Beverley) have much in the way of alternative to HT for direct London journeys, barring the one-a-day LNER service.

In most instances the alternative will be inferior - a long slow ride on a 158 (perhaps a Pacer if unlucky?) followed by a wait at Doncaster, and then a journey on LNER perhaps calling at more stops than HT would have done.

One wonders if the absence of HT in recent days has seen an improvement in overall performance at the congested south end of the ECML?! Certainly when on a GTR service perception is it’s disproportionately often a HT or GC service one has to wait for at Woolmer Green or elsewhere!

Andrewh32 · 16 Oct 2018

I'll probably need a hard hat to hide under after saying this but I am fortunate or unfortunate to have a close relative working for Hull trains therefore rightly or wrongly I have seen and read a copy of the current open access agreement for Hull trains.

Two points within it which are relevant

Firstly it clearly states that they are not allowed to substitute in any other class of train other than other 180s hence why in the recent past GC 180s have appeared. For those of you that say hang on what about the 86 may I politely say that was under a previous open access agreement which allowed for many different classes as Hull trains developed it's fleet requirements.

Secondly and of more relevance to the future whilst mention of new stock is made which does mention 800s they don't have permission under the current open access agreement to operate 800s or any other new stock, whilst of course discussions have taken place agreement is not yet in place.

So all thoughts of bringing something in short term not only need to find something suitable available but also needs a change to the open access agreement which may or may not be forthcoming. Reality is they are stuck with the 180s and no extra or substitute rolling stock and whilst I'm sure agreement will be reached to operate 800s it's not currently agreed.

talltim · 16 Oct 2018

Clarence Yard said:
No, because the 800 units are not theirs to lend - they are not leased to GWR. As with the HST 2+5 option, even if they were available, you have to train crew in their operation and that doesn’t happen overnight.

The 180 units are on a fixed lease so you just can’t return them because you want to.

You’d have thought the lease would have some of quality clauses in it. Although if they returned them early they’d have no trains...

700007 · 16 Oct 2018

Clarence Yard said:
No, because the 800 units are not theirs to lend - they are not leased to GWR. As with the HST 2+5 option, even if they were available, you have to train crew in their operation and that doesn’t happen overnight.

The 180 units are on a fixed lease so you just can’t return them because you want to.

Oh sorry I meant to make it clearer that the HSTs would cover the two or four missing 800s on GWR.

But indeed I knew there had to be a restriction of some sort to it. Didn't know the 180s were on a fixed lease either. When does that end?

Thank you for the information Clarence Yard.

yorksrob · 16 Oct 2018

Taunton said:
More politely than I would have done. It's apparently £97 single KX-Doncaster for the cheapest Super Extra Bargain or whatever it's called. Which if you look above is not far off what I've paid, pro-rata by mileage, for my Anytime to Leeds.

Someone else showing an HT ticket was given an Unpaid Fare Notice, which means if they get into protracted discussion with Hull Trains the bailiffs will presumably be coming calling. What an advert for rail travel.

Indeed. As seems to be more frequently the case these days, individual passengers being strong-armed into paying for the industry's failure.

Clarence Yard · 16 Oct 2018

A point about track access agreements and alternative traction.

The rules were changed some years ago. Everyone's TAA has a clause in it which allows them to use any traction that is listed in the SA but your rights will drop from firm to contingent if that traction can't meet the timing load for the traction listed in your schedule 5 tables.

yorkie · 16 Oct 2018

Andrewh32 said:
I'll probably need a hard hat to hide under after saying this but I am fortunate or unfortunate to have a close relative working for Hull trains therefore rightly or wrongly I have seen and read a copy of the current open access agreement for Hull trains.

Two points within it which are relevant

Firstly it clearly states that they are not allowed to substitute in any other class of train other than other 180s.....

You don't need to be a related to a Hull Trains employee to see this document (!)

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/24965/consolidated-agreement-hull-trains.pdf

...Contingent Rights to operate any railway vehicles registered with Network Rail’s rolling stock library...

I suggest you go back to that person and ask them why they are providing misleading information.

theblackwatch · 16 Oct 2018

It looks like they've managed to get two sets in traffic today.

Silver Cobra · 16 Oct 2018

Taunton said:
You have to ask why is there a (it sounds considerable) LNER revenue haul from the HT passengers, who at least seem readily accommodated, but not from the Thameslink ones to Stevenage, who are preventing their mainstream passengers getting seats.

It is likely the majority of those using LNER services between Kings Cross and Stevenage would under normal circumstances have used Thameslink/GN if the service was more reliable. However, LNER have their own dedicated fares from Kings Cross to Stevenage that undercut the standard 'Any Permitted' fares, so at least some of those passengers could be travelling on such tickets.

Taunton · 16 Oct 2018

yorksrob said:
Indeed. As seems to be more frequently the case these days, individual passengers being strong-armed into paying for the industry's failure.

I agree. The whole thing about penalties etc and these being legally enforceable in court came about in times when there were staff checking tickets at every entrance, and exit, and if you didn't have one (or the right one) you were guided appropriately, and it was really only people who were on the fiddle who had not paid. Once that was on the statute book then all sorts of cost-cutting measures were applied and things destaffed, and the penalties, compared to old days, skyrocketed. At one time the platform barrier check at Kings Cross would have prevented those with an invalid ticket from boarding a given train. But it was cheaper to do a single gateline without the intelligence that the old ticket collectors had, so it just allows any ticket in to any platform. Meanwhile the combinations of what was and what was not valid mushroomed, by time of day, train operator, acceptance arrangements or not on the day, other combinations. I certainly can't see any justification for both LNER and Hull Trains having received revenue for last night's passengers. Maybe you can recover one after a hassle. And maybe not.

paul1609 · 16 Oct 2018

ainsworth74 said:
Yes I'm not quite sure where that's come from. There have been comments on this thread by various members which seem to suggest that HT is a budget operator or, at the very least, cheaper than LNER. This is something that HT have never, to my knowledge, advertised themselves as being (in the way that Grand Central did when they first started out).

One need only look at the fares from Hull to London to see this:

Anytime Return
Route: Any Permitted = £238.00
Route: Hull Trains Only = £221.00

Off-Peak Return
Route: Any Permitted = £180.50
Route: Hull Trains Only = £154.50

Super Off-Peak Return
Route: Any Permitted = £110.00
Route: Hull Trains Only = £105.00

I mean they are cheaper to be sure but these are hardly the fares of budget operator or even that substantial of a saving over the Any Permitted!

It's a similar picture to be honest with advance fares. Looking at a random date in mid-November you can get to London on the first direct HT arriving 0915 for £63.00 whilst the only equivalent LNER option involves changing at Doncaster and arriving at 0851 whilst paying £106.50 for the privilege. A nice saving! That being said the direct LNER arriving into London at 0953 is cheaper than the HT service at £54.00!

But once you leave the morning peak both the direct HTs and the LNER with a change at Doncaster are around the same price! For example the 1309 HT arrival is £28.00 whilst there is an LNER option arriving at 1301 is £29.00 (you start to see why they are popular, why change when the arrival time and price are so similar?).

HT are by no stretch of the imagination a budget operator and do not, in general, offer a substantial saving over the LNER+Connections option.

I am confused where this idea has come from!

To be honest that was kind of why i can't understand why Hull Trains do not upgrade all their customers to Any Permitted, at the very least they should suspend the sale of Hull Trains Only tickets until the current issues are resolved.

All Line Rover · 16 Oct 2018

ainsworth74 said:
There have been comments on this thread by various members which seem to suggest that HT is a budget operator or, at the very least, cheaper than LNER. This is something that HT have never, to my knowledge, advertised themselves as being...

I mean they are cheaper to be sure but these are hardly the fares of budget operator or even that substantial of a saving over the Any Permitted!

...

HT are by no stretch of the imagination a budget operator and do not, in general, offer a substantial saving over the LNER+Connections option.

I am confused where this idea has come from!

My comments were prompted by the reports of HT customers arguing with / causing trouble for LNER staff. Passengers holding tickets that are similarly priced to tickets valid on LNER have no need to argue - they can send their ticket for a full refund and buy a new ticket for travel with LNER* (the inconvenience of waiting for a refund from HT is HT's problem, not LNER's). Those passengers arguing are, therefore, likely to be passengers holding cheaper tickets than can be obtained with LNER, who do not wish to use the inconvenient alternative transport arranged by HT and instead 'expect' to be carried by LNER despite holding a HT-Only ticket.

*Virgin (West Coast) staff, and even London Northwestern Railway station staff, make this option clear to LNR customers on the WCML. If this option isn't being made clear to HT customers on the ECML, this needs to be addressed.

Journeyman · 16 Oct 2018

Starmill said:
Trainline is popular. The fact that it doesn't generally offer the cheapest way to buy your tickets, and that it is disliked by enthusiasts, does not really change that.

Do they still charge booking fees?

Taunton · 16 Oct 2018

paul1609 said:
Passengers holding tickets that are similarly priced to tickets valid on LNER have no need to argue - they can send their ticket for a full refund and buy a new ticket for travel with LNER* (the inconvenience of waiting for a refund from HT is HT's problem, not LNER's).

Surely the inconvenience is for the passenger, not a train operator.

*Virgin (West Coast) staff, and even London Northwestern Railway station staff, make this option clear to LNR customers on the WCML. If this option isn't being made clear to HT customers on the ECML, this needs to be addressed.

Passengers last night were being told that this had been "made clear" on the train PA. Well I never heard any announcement about it at all, and I'm probably more tuned in to what was going on than most. And we do live in the real world where passengers do not speak railway jargon, where announcements about "Hull Trains" don't get absorbed by someone who thinks "Not me then, I'm going to Doncaster".

Bungle965 · 16 Oct 2018

Journeyman said:
Do they still charge booking fees?

Yes, but not for on the day tickets.
Sam

Hull Trains cancellations due to chronic shortage of available rolling stock

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member