Another fantastic day with Avanti

[The Prisoner]

Technically both right as Virgin/Stagecoach did lose to First in a contest that was overturned by the courts (2012). They were then disqualified by DfT in a row over pensions relating to Stagecoach and First won uncontested (2019).

Loss overturned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19402133

Disqualification https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-10/stagecoach-barred-from-franchise-bids-over-pensions-feud

(post was related to one directly above it. Not great with the quotes thingy on the messageboard)

DfT aren't going to allow one contracted [ex-franchised] TOC to compete with another. Open Access paths and a willing operator are what would be needed.

Why isn't there a credible Open Access operator willing to take anything on for the WCML? Avanti are surely a sitting duck serving such busy routes so poorly.

I know GC were going to try the Blackpool - Euston route and were a victim of Covid. If they had taken it on I'm certain they would be doing well now, although I understand why they didn't.

The ECML has Lumo, Hull Trains and GC, the Great Western ML has Grand Union coming soon.....why nothing on the WCML? There has to be a case for a challenger (what price Virgin being persuaded to front a bid!!!)

 

[The Planner]

Technically both right as Virgin/Stagecoach did lose to First in a contest that was overturned by the courts (2012). They were then disqualified by DfT in a row over pensions relating to Stagecoach and First won uncontested (2019).

Loss overturned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19402133

Disqualification https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-10/stagecoach-barred-from-franchise-bids-over-pensions-feud

(post was related to one directly above it. Not great with the quotes thingy on the messageboard)


Why isn't there a credible Open Access operator willing to take anything on for the WCML? Avanti are surely a sitting duck serving such busy routes so poorly.

I know GC were going to try the Blackpool - Euston route and were a victim of Covid. If they had taken it on I'm certain they would be doing well now, although I understand why they didn't.

The ECML has Lumo, Hull Trains and GC, the Great Western ML has Grand Union coming soon.....why nothing on the WCML? There has to be a case for a challenger (what price Virgin being persuaded to front a bid!!!)

There is, Grand Union. They have bid to run to Stirling but you won't see them before 2025.

 

[daikilo]

DfT aren't going to allow one contracted [ex-franchised] TOC to compete with another. Open Access paths and a willing operator are what would be needed.

Really? A contract variation should be possible given the number Avanti are already creating! Maybe Avanti could even be made to lend LNWR some stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? A contract variation should be possible given the number Avanti are already creating! Maybe Avanti could even be made to lend LNWR some stock.

It's worth noting that the whole idea of the Trent Valley LNR service was pseudo-open access. I understand that the franchise requirement for LM was a (possibly two-hourly) Rugby-Crewe via Stoke local service, not the hourly through service they actually did and grew massively from near-nothing.

 

[hkstudent]

Meanwhile, Avanti terminate short again the last London - Glasgow and Glasgow - London service at Preston, without providing any onward connection advice

 

[TUC]

The contractual arrangements the government currently have with Avanti need to be adjusted so that they are not cost neutral, so that Avanti is charged a penalty cost and positively makes a loss for each cancelled service.

 

[paul1609]

The contractual arrangements the government currently have with Avanti need to be adjusted so that they are not cost neutral, so that Avanti is charged a penalty cost and positively makes a loss for each cancelled service.

Surely the crux of the matter is that with revenue at 80% of 2019 levels nobody can make a commercial profit on any franchise currently and are not surprisingly unwilling to take on any contracts where they'd take a loss. The commercial remedy would be to cut services so that it would be profitable, in Avanti's case this would be stuff like Holyhead and Early and Late Services on their core network, removing cheaper advance tickets, catering on many services etc, etc. but the Government won't specify that for political reasons.

 

[TomG]

Surely the crux of the matter is that with revenue at 80% of 2019 levels nobody can make a commercial profit on any franchise currently and are not surprisingly unwilling to take on any contracts where they'd take a loss. The commercial remedy would be to cut services so that it would be profitable, in Avanti's case this would be stuff like Holyhead and Early and Late Services on their core network, removing cheaper advance tickets, catering on many services etc, etc. but the Government won't specify that for political reasons.

Cutting services/routes which were not profitable was what Beeching did (well one of them). However this led to revenue decreasing on the main, more profitable routes as there was less demand once additional services/routes were removed.

Also back when Virgin (finished) running services you had

3 x London-Birmingham (with 1tp2h extending to Glasgow and 1tp2h to extending to Edinburgh)
3 x London-Manchester (with 1tph via Crewe and 2tph via Stoke)
1 x London-Glasgow
1 x London-Liverpool
1 x London-Chester (with some extensions to Bangor and Holyhead, which provided more trains and more seats for people in North Wales)
With various extensions/additional services during the day.

The current Avanti timetable is.

1tp2h London-Blackpool via Brum
1tp2h London-Edinburgh via Brum (Well I say Edinburgh but often, like the train I was on today it terminates at Preston due to Crew Shortage AKA Avanti's unofficial strikes0
occasionally there are some other trains between Brum and London
1tph London-Manchester via Stoke. I think they are trying to increase this with varying degrees of success. Or not success as the case may be.
1tph London-Glasgow (Well I say Glasgow but...)
1tph London-Liverpool
1tp2h or so Crewe-Holyhead. Very few direct trains between the City of Chester and London. And the connections at Crewe are quite tight.

Once again First Group has made a right mess (for want of another term) of a Train Franchise.

 

[TUC]

Surely the crux of the matter is that with revenue at 80% of 2019 levels nobody can make a commercial profit on any franchise currently and are not surprisingly unwilling to take on any contracts where they'd take a loss. The commercial remedy would be to cut services so that it would be profitable, in Avanti's case this would be stuff like Holyhead and Early and Late Services on their core network, removing cheaper advance tickets, catering on many services etc, etc. but the Government won't specify that for political reasons.

Many of those changes would be breaches of franchise commitments and, if they arose, the DfT should simply tell Avanti they cannot implement them. My point is that guaranteed revenue, even at lower levels, gives no incentive to run a service. Avanti should be required to meet its franchise requires and be hit by loss making penalties if they do not. The aim should be to make the company feel pain until it improves.

 

[TomG]

Technically both right as Virgin/Stagecoach did lose to First in a contest that was overturned by the courts (2012). They were then disqualified by DfT in a row over pensions relating to Stagecoach and First won uncontested (2019).

Loss overturned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19402133

Disqualification https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-10/stagecoach-barred-from-franchise-bids-over-pensions-feud

(post was related to one directly above it. Not great with the quotes thingy on the messageboard)


Why isn't there a credible Open Access operator willing to take anything on for the WCML? Avanti are surely a sitting duck serving such busy routes so poorly.

I know GC were going to try the Blackpool - Euston route and were a victim of Covid. If they had taken it on I'm certain they would be doing well now, although I understand why they didn't.

The ECML has Lumo, Hull Trains and GC, the Great Western ML has Grand Union coming soon.....why nothing on the WCML? There has to be a case for a challenger (what price Virgin being persuaded to front a bid!!!)

I think at one point VT were considering a Liverpool to London Service. Pathing problems could be why it was denied. If Avanti was operating the timetable that Virgin had there would be 9 Avanti services utilising the track between Euston and Rugby, in addition to the quick LNWR services.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Many of those changes would be breaches of franchise commitments and, if they arose, the DfT should simply tell Avanti they cannot implement them. My point is that guaranteed revenue, even at lower levels, gives no incentive to run a service. Avanti should be required to meet its franchise requires and be hit by loss making penalties if they do not. The aim should be to make the company feel pain until it improves.

There is no such thing as a franchise anymore. Avanti are acting as the DfT’s managing agents and get a fee for doing so. There is a performance element to it but that takes in many factors, not just train performance.

The DfT decides the base timetable to be run, not the TOC. Any alteration to that long-term timetable has to be agreed by them.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Cutting services/routes which were not profitable was what Beeching did (well one of them). However this led to revenue decreasing on the main, more profitable routes as there was less demand once additional services/routes were removed.

Also back when Virgin (finished) running services you had

3 x London-Birmingham (with 1tp2h extending to Glasgow and 1tp2h to extending to Edinburgh)
3 x London-Manchester (with 1tph via Crewe and 2tph via Stoke)
1 x London-Glasgow
1 x London-Liverpool
1 x London-Chester (with some extensions to Bangor and Holyhead, which provided more trains and more seats for people in North Wales)
With various extensions/additional services during the day.

The current Avanti timetable is.

1tp2h London-Blackpool via Brum
1tp2h London-Edinburgh via Brum (Well I say Edinburgh but often, like the train I was on today it terminates at Preston due to Crew Shortage AKA Avanti's unofficial strikes0
occasionally there are some other trains between Brum and London
1tph London-Manchester via Stoke. I think they are trying to increase this with varying degrees of success. Or not success as the case may be.
1tph London-Glasgow (Well I say Glasgow but...)
1tph London-Liverpool
1tp2h or so Crewe-Holyhead. Very few direct trains between the City of Chester and London. And the connections at Crewe are quite tight.

Once again First Group has made a right mess (for want of another term) of a Train Franchise.

substantial increase in services from timetable change although strikes will wreck that so they will probably buy themselves several weeks before they can truly demonstrate whether they can deliver the daily increase in services reliably.

 

[TUC]

There is no such thing as a franchise anymore. Avanti are acting as the DfT’s managing agents and get a fee for doing so. There is a performance element to it but that takes in many factors, not just train performance.

The DfT decides the base timetable to be run, not the TOC. Any alteration to that long-term timetable has to be agreed by them.

I'm using 'franchise' as shorthand here for a contract with delivery requirements. Just having a performance elements with many factors to be taken into account is not good enough. The core delivery aspect is running the service itself. The DfT should introduce a requirement that if a service is not run the operator loses more than just the equivalent payment for this journey. Cancellations should be made to cause a TOC real pain. That would focus the minds.

 

[Clarence Yard]

You wouldn’t get any takers for that type of contract, not when so many of the factors are out of the TOCs’ control.

 

[TUC]

You wouldn’t get any takers for that type of contract, not when so many of the factors are out of the TOCs’ control.

I am talking about a provision for when the level of cancellations are regularly well above those that occur in normal operations, such as what is being seen in Avanti.

 

[Clarence Yard]

You still wouldn’t get any takers, unless the list of exemptions was as long as your arm. iR issues would be fairly near the top.

 

[Carlisle]

I'm using 'franchise' as shorthand here for a contract with delivery requirements.

Didn’t Christian Wolmar from the beginning refer to franchising as ‘Pretend Capitalism’?

 

[Peter0124]

Yet again the 16.23 from Euston to Edinburgh has been diverted to Glasgow.

 

[Carlisle]

Yet again the 16.23 from Euston to Edinburgh has been diverted to Glasgow.

There was a fatality earlier so a degree of ongoing disruption was probably inevitable.

 

[Birkonian]

24 Avanti cancellations today and a number of short runnings. A disgraceful situation.

 

[BPN2022]

Wonder if tonight’s World Cup match has meant there has been a spike in “sickness”.

 

[philosopher]

24 Avanti cancellations today and a number of short runnings. A disgraceful situation.

I just can’t see their uplift in services from tomorrow going well if they can’t run their current timetable. What the betting that they will have to swiftly bring in another emergency timetable?

 

[Taunton]

The other case for this is where there are units being split or joined at Euston where people boarding can be a nuisance as at Euston it's not permitted with passengers on board (why I don't quite know).

It's a good thing passengers didn't all have to get out in the old days while locos were changed ...

Regarding current Euston, there two days ago, interesting comment from a couple of elder passengers about the new departure boards, positioned annoyingly across the concourse. "They are not nearly as good as the old one". And indeed they are not. I wonder what salesman managed to scoop up some considerable budget for them.

As I was waiting for an arrival I did notice that the platform shown for this was fully occupied throughout by a standing empty train, and was not updated until the inbound was actually running in elsewhere, which just seems to show some disconnect between operations and information.

Also the number of trains just sat there with no attention being given. One is regularly told (on here) that trains cannot be announced until shortly before departure, hence the scrum, because they are being 'prepared for departure'. Yet periodic inspections down at the barrier line seemed to show no such preparations taking place at all, nobody working on them, just treating the platforms as carriage sidings.

 

[The Planner]

Also the number of trains just sat there with no attention being given. One is regularly told (on here) that trains cannot be announced until shortly before departure, hence the scrum, because they are being 'prepared for departure'. Yet periodic inspections down at the barrier line seemed to show no such preparations taking place at all, nobody working on them, just treating the platforms as carriage sidings.

What else are you going to do with the trains? Why shunt trains out, eating capacity in the process for no good reason?

 

[zwk500]

What else are you going to do with the trains? Why shunt trains out, eating capacity in the process for no good reason?

I think the suggestion is to allow people to board them.

 

[Timmyd]

It's a good thing passengers didn't all have to get out in the old days while locos were changed ...

Regarding current Euston, there two days ago, interesting comment from a couple of elder passengers about the new departure boards, positioned annoyingly across the concourse. "They are not nearly as good as the old one". And indeed they are not. I wonder what salesman managed to scoop up some considerable budget for them.

As I was waiting for an arrival I did notice that the platform shown for this was fully occupied throughout by a standing empty train, and was not updated until the inbound was actually running in elsewhere, which just seems to show some disconnect between operations and information.

Also the number of trains just sat there with no attention being given. One is regularly told (on here) that trains cannot be announced until shortly before departure, hence the scrum, because they are being 'prepared for departure'. Yet periodic inspections down at the barrier line seemed to show no such preparations taking place at all, nobody working on them, just treating the platforms as carriage sidings.

Presumably the rationale behind the new departure boards is that the location of the old one makes great advertising space to sell. Or am I being too cynical…..?

 

[zwk500]

Presumably the rationale behind the new departure boards is that the location of the old one makes great advertising space to sell. Or am I being too cynical…..?

Euston departure boards being discussed here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/euston-departure-board-to-be-moved.239403/

 

[Taunton]

What else are you going to do with the trains? Why shunt trains out, eating capacity in the process for no good reason?

Not quite my point, which was that trains are described here as being "prepared" until the scrum point 5 minutes before departure, and it not being possible to do otherwise because there is a 'shortage of platforms', whereas in fact there are multiple trains just sat there with no preparation at all.

Leaving trains just sat in platforms, rather than sending out to sidings, has been the cause of multiple recent collisions (Plymouth, Norwich, Kings Cross) with shorter trains being squeezed in to double bank at remaining platforms.

 

[43066]

Leaving trains just sat in platforms, rather than sending out to sidings, has been the cause of multiple recent collisions (Plymouth, Norwich, Kings Cross) with shorter trains being squeezed in to double bank at remaining platforms.

These days there are often no sidings available to be used to prevent this. Shunting empty trains around to get them out of the way (which does still happen) also eats into thinly stretched capacity.

 

[leytongabriel]

Not quite my point, which was that trains are described here as being "prepared" until the scrum point 5 minutes before departure, and it not being possible to do otherwise because there is a 'shortage of platforms', whereas in fact there are multiple trains just sat there with no preparation at all.

Leaving trains just sat in platforms, rather than sending out to sidings, has been the cause of multiple recent collisions (Plymouth, Norwich, Kings Cross) with shorter trains being squeezed in to double bank at remaining platforms.

Yes, and making the 'scrum' experience worse for passengers as they have to charge down the length of the platform past the first train too, often with whistles being blown at them to get the train away as they struggle with luggage, buggies, bikes etc. Grim.