Hull Trains cancellations due to chronic shortage of available rolling stock

[lincolnshire]

It was Croften Depot that dropped the Hull Trains Class 222 and k*******d it up and started there problem way back and the government then did a deal for there Pioneer trains to end up with East Midland Trains to bolster there fleet and Hull Trains got the Class 180.s

Jungle telegraph suggests it might be 29th October before the service is back to normalish

 

[High Dyke]

Someone mentioned when HT had the 222 fleet, a product of Bombardier. However the 180's are not their product; so is there much empathy in trying to maintain a product that isn't yours? A bit like taking your Rolls-Royce to the local garage because he's cheaper, but not as experienced in that type of vehicle. (Unless of course your local garage is a Rolls-Royce trained technician...)

As an aside, Grand Central's 180114 failed at Grantham yesterday with engine problems....

 

[HullRailMan]

Seems odd that LNER don’t have enough capacity to offer ticket acceptance today but will find space for you if you buy a new ticket at £100+ as per HT’s instructions.

While I understand that this isn’t LNER’s issue it doesn’t show the industry as a whole in a great light when different companies don’t work together for the good of the passenger.

 

[Silver Cobra]

13/10/18 19:48 London Kings Cross to Hull due 22:20 will be cancelled.This is due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time.Additional Information:Hull, Brough & Doncaster Customers are advised to travel on GTR 2016 service from London Kings Cross to Peterborough arrive 2239. Then transfer onto a bus at 2240 from Peterborough to Hull, Brough and Doncaster. Howden & Selby Customers are advised to travel on GTR 2016 service from London Kings Cross to Peterborough arrive 2239. Then transfer into taxis at 2240 from Peterborough to Howden and Selby. Retford Customers are advised to travel on GTR 2016 service from London Kings Cross to Peterborough arrive 2239. Then transfer onto a bus at 2240 from Peterborough to Retford. Grantham Customers are advised to travel on GTR 2016 service from London Kings Cross to Peterborough arrive 2239. Then transfer onto a bus at 2240 from Peterborough to Grantham.

2240 departure from Peterborough? That seems... terribly late, no?

It makes me wonder if HT have got their information wrong as, according to RTT and NRE, the 2016 Thameslink service from Kings Cross arrives into Peterborough at 2134, yet the information you quoted from their website says it arrives at 2239, which is seemingly what the timings for the replacement bus are based on. I’d be surprised if passengers really do have to wait an hour plus at Peterborough for their onward connection, but stranger things have happened.

 

[hwl]

If the GC 180s are performing better than the Hull trains ones are they doing so at a statistical significant level? Does this suggest differences in service level being paid for?

Are the Cummins engine major overhaul being done by bombardier or outsourced to a 3rd party that isn't Cummins? Possible comparison with SWR 159s and changing major overhaul contractor?

 

[TUC]

Then the HT passengers can buy those advances, then they can board. This has gone beyond previous reciprocal agreements to carry passengers now, HT are just expecting everyone to pick up the pieces from their mess.
.

And do you think discretionary passengers would be likely to travel long distance by rail again if they have such a long, complex journey as those put in place this weekend? In the long term LNER has much to lose from a bad passenger experience too.

 

[swaldman]

The news article about LNER staff not being particularly happy with HT staff seems about right as well, if what I heard yesterday is true anyway. Several times over the course of the week HT passengers have tried to board LNER services despite being advised not to so and with a strong sense of self entitlement. One particular first class passenger has become fairly well known to staff after trying it at least twice and making all sorts of silly legal threats against staff when told they couldn't travel.

TBH, I take the passengers' side in this one (though they shouldn't be rude about it).

If I have booked a ticket from x to y, I do not care which operator I have booked it with; I want to get from x to y. Of course, if all the lines are blocked and there is no reasonable way to achieve this, I accept that. But if I'm not on my booked train through no fault of my own, and when there are perfectly good trains travelling along the route, I expect to be allowed to use those other trains. I expect the various operators to cooperate to make this happen as best they can; if they have commercial arguments with one another, they should not be making this my problem. UK rail needs to be seen as a national network, from the passenger's perspective, not a group of separate railways.

(I realise that that is not how things are at present. Please do not feel the need to tell me.)
(Yes, I have been personally burnt by this before, once again by the ECML operator, albeit under slightly different circumstances)

 

[Deafdoggie]

You pay your money you take your choice. You booked Hull trains because it’s cheaper. If you’d booked Any Operator there’s no argument.
If I book online shopping from Tesco and their van breaks down, I don’t expect Waitrose to turn up because they’re delivering food too

 

[All Line Rover]

Then the HT passengers can buy those advances, then they can board. This has gone beyond previous reciprocal agreements to carry passengers now, HT are just expecting everyone to pick up the pieces from their mess.

The news article about LNER staff not being particularly happy with HT staff seems about right as well, if what I heard yesterday is true anyway. Several times over the course of the week HT passengers have tried to board LNER services despite being advised not to so and with a strong sense of self entitlement. One particular first class passenger has become fairly well known to staff after trying it at least twice and making all sorts of silly legal threats against staff when told they couldn't travel.

Which is no different from Virgin Trains (West Coast) refusing to convey London Midland / London Northwestern Railway passengers when a LM / LNR service is cancelled due to LM / LNR's perennial "staff shortages". And you witness the subsequent arguments with staff at stations like Nuneaton when passengers holding "LNR only" tickets waiting for the cancelled 20.51 arrival into Euston (the last LNR service to Euston), can't catch a later Virgin service arriving into Euston around 21.00 (unless they buy a new ticket and send the LNR ticket for a refund), but must instead travel with LNR to Northampton and then catch an LNR stopper to Euston, arriving around 00.20.

You choose to buy a cheaper "LNR only" ticket, you take the risk of staff shortages. You choose to buy a cheaper "Hull Trains only" ticket, you take the risk of rolling stock shortages.

 

[robbeech]

Seems odd that LNER don’t have enough capacity to offer ticket acceptance today but will find space for you if you buy a new ticket at £100+ as per HT’s instructions.

While I understand that this isn’t LNER’s issue it doesn’t show the industry as a whole in a great light when different companies don’t work together for the good of the passenger.

The industry often does work together, but working together means working together not LNER bailing out HT all the time. This isn’t a bad week it’s a bad year. We have been here before several times. LNER’s reputation is suffering because of HT’s poor reliability. When a HT catches fire or dissipates fuel across the tracks it causes thousands of delay minutes. As HT only have 4 trains the number of passengers is low compared to those using LNER services but all operators are affected massively. People don’t care the reason for the delay they will quite often just blame the company of the train they are on. Why should LNER keep bailing them out left right and centre. They have a duty of care to passengers so cannot leave them stranded but I see no real reason for them to go any further than that. Harsh but true.

I’d be surprised if passengers really do have to wait an hour plus at Peterborough for their onward connection, but stranger things have happened.

I wouldn’t be so surprised. Sadly on top of the reliability debacle with HT there comes the poor communication about alternative and replacement services. Things have known to change last minute if not beyond last minute. I remember ticket acceptance for Grantham being in place on a particular (then) VTEC Service for them to retract it 2 minutes after the departure time of that service. Luckily the guard was understanding but did clearly state that he should charge for new tickets and let them deal with it with HT after the event.
So this timing today could go either way really, the problem comes if they’ve made a mistake and it leaves you stranded HT are (from experience) not great at getting you home.

TBH, I take the passengers' side in this one (though they shouldn't be rude about it).

If I have booked a ticket from x to y, I do not care which operator I have booked it with; I want to get from x to y. Of course, if all the lines are blocked and there is no reasonable way to achieve this, I accept that. But if I'm not on my booked train through no fault of my own, and when there are perfectly good trains travelling along the route, I expect to be allowed to use those other trains. I expect the various operators to cooperate to make this happen as best they can; if they have commercial arguments with one another, they should not be making this my problem. UK rail needs to be seen as a national network, from the passenger's perspective, not a group of separate railways.

(I realise that that is not how things are at present. Please do not feel the need to tell me.)
(Yes, I have been personally burnt by this before, once again by the ECML operator, albeit under slightly different circumstances)

I don’t feel the need to tell you that this isn’t how things are. It’s clear you know this but what we need to remember is when you booked your ticket you were given several options for different ticket types. You could provide yourself with a financial benefit by purchasing a more restrictive ticket. You take a risk that should there be disruption (and let’s face it we have a network where disruption is all too common and this fact is well known and publicised) that you may be more restricted with alternative travel than you would have been had you paid more money.
I would not book a hotel on a ‘saver’ non refundable rate and then expect the same flexibility as I would get with the higher rate.

 

[takno]

You pay your money you take your choice. You booked Hull trains because it’s cheaper. If you’d booked Any Operator there’s no argument.
If I book online shopping from Tesco and their van breaks down, I don’t expect Waitrose to turn up because they’re delivering food too

Also true of airlines. The airline which cancelled your plane may book you onto a rival operator, but only if the rival operator agrees and they pay the going fare for you. If your airline decides to stick you on a bus instead to save money you can't just rock up at the departure gate for a rival and expect to get on the plane

 

[All Line Rover]

If I have booked a ticket from x to y, I do not care which operator I have booked it with; I want to get from x to y... [If] I'm not on my booked train through no fault of my own, and when there are perfectly good trains travelling along the route, I expect to be allowed to use those other trains... UK rail needs to be seen as a national network, from the passenger's perspective, not a group of separate railways.

And so you can! By returning your cheaper Hull Trains ticket to Hull Trains for a full refund, and buying a new ticket that is valid with LNER.

If the UK rail network was fully integrated rather than run by separate train operators, your cheaper Hull Trains ticket wouldn't exist to begin with.

Seems odd that LNER don’t have enough capacity to offer ticket acceptance today but will find space for you if you buy a new ticket at £100+ as per HT’s instructions.

They might have the capacity to carry the five people expected to purchase the £100 fare while not having the capacity to carry 200 people holding £20 fares.

Moreover, this is not solely a question of capacity. Virgin Trains (West Coast) has plenty of spare capacity on late evening arrivals into Euston but, although Virgin assists LNR during infrastructure problems (and LNR reciprocates), Virgin doesn't exist as a free back-up for LNR passengers when LNR cancels services due to threadbare staffing levels. It might be possible to *physically* accommodate all displaced LNR passengers on late evening Virgin arrivals into Euston, but Virgin offers a premium service with premium fares - a premium which would disappear if Virgin services were swamped with LNR passengers paying a fraction of Virgin's own customers.

The prior knowledge of Hull Trains' customers about Hull Trains' reliability is irrelevant. Hull Trains customers holding cheaper "Hull Trains Only" tickets (some will hold "Any Permitted" tickets) limited themselves to Hull Trains services of their own volition. Once aware that Hull Trains services are disrupted, these customers have the choice of accepting the alternative transport offered by Hull Trains, or requesting a full refund from Hull Trains and buying a new ticket valid with LNER. This approach is fair and standard practice in any industry with competing businesses.

According to Hull Trains JourneyCheck, Hull Trains are today offering to reimburse passengers the cost of alternative LNER tickets, because Hull Trains are unable to source sufficient road transport. This is a fair outcome for Hull Trains customers. Also, if all Hull Trains customers use LNER over replacement road transport, swamping LNER services, this doesn't devalue LNER's offering because all displaced Hull Trains customers are paying just as much as other LNER customers.

While I understand that this isn’t LNER’s issue it doesn’t show the industry as a whole in a great light when different companies don’t work together for the good of the passenger.

While analogies are regularly misused by rail staff, I think a fair comparison in this situation would be expecting department stores such as John Lewis to accept Debenhams gift cards because Debenhams doesn't have the stock to fulfil orders. The only store sustaining reputational damage here is Debenhams, not the rest of the department store industry for refusing to "co-operate".

 

[Darandio]

Also true of airlines. The airline which cancelled your plane may book you onto a rival operator, but only if the rival operator agrees and they pay the going fare for you. If your airline decides to stick you on a bus instead to save money you can't just rock up at the departure gate for a rival and expect to get on the plane

And that is why the solution should be for Hull Trains to be providing valid tickets for travel if they cannot provide a service, or make it clear that what @All Line Rover has suggested above is the alternative option. I also believe they should not be selling their own operator only tickets at a time when they haven't got a service.

 

[swaldman]

So presumably the average passenger, when buying a ticket, should take the time to check the size of an operator's fleet and their recent reliability record, so as to make an informed choice?

(because this is the forum that it is, I fully expect a load of people to answer "yes"....)

 

[Darandio]

So presumably the average passenger, when buying a ticket, should take the time to check the size of an operator's fleet and their recent reliability record, so as to make an informed choice?

(because this is the forum that it is, I fully expect a load of people to answer "yes"....)

Of course not. In this case I believe Hull Trains should be better informing you.

 

[jamesst]

I'd definitely be applying to other tocs if I was a member of train crew for Hull Trains, must be very unnerving for them

 

[Esker-pades]

You pay your money you take your choice. You booked Hull trains because it’s cheaper. If you’d booked Any Operator there’s no argument.
If I book online shopping from Tesco and their van breaks down, I don’t expect Waitrose to turn up because they’re delivering food too

Or because they're the main operator from London to Selby/Hull. Or because their services happen to be at the time that the person wants to travel. Assuming that the only reason people travel on Hull Trains is due to price is ignorant.

Online shopping is also a poor comparison: If Tesco don't deliver my food, I can walk to the local shop and buy some food from there. Or eat something that I already have in my fridge. Whereas, if I'm in Howden waiting for my service to London and it's cancelled, I'm left either paying many hundreds of pounds for a taxi, or a very long journey with multiple changes and having to buy a new ticket. None of this is cheap.

Most people booking tickets would rather get to their destination than be subjected to the huge stress that Hull Trains' poor performance is currently causing. As I have said many times to various TOCs on the phone: "If I had known you would cancel this service, I would have booked on a different train. The point is that that information wasn't available when I booked the tickets."

 

[Darandio]

They might have the capacity to carry the five people expected to purchase the £100 fare while not having the capacity to carry 200 people holding £20 fares.

This is the top and bottom of it, regardless of any commercial or reciprocal agreements. Why anyone would believe that LNER should inconvenience their own passengers by adding a trainload from another operator is beyond me.

 

[Darandio]

Most people booking tickets would rather get to their destination than be subjected to the huge stress that Hull Trains' poor performance is currently causing. As I have said many times to various TOCs on the phone: "If I had known you would cancel this service, I would have booked on a different train. The point is that that information wasn't available when I booked the tickets."

Again, they shouldn't be selling their own tickets when there is an extreme event like this. They are only showing full cancellations for today and are still claiming they are still working on what to do tomorrow, they know full well there probably isn't going to be a service of any kind. They also know that the fleet isn't just going to magic itself better for next week. To still sell restrictive tickets for services that aren't likely to run is wrong.

 

[Esker-pades]

Again, they shouldn't be selling their own tickets when there is an extreme event like this. They are only showing full cancellations for today and are still claiming they are still working on what to do tomorrow, they know full well there probably isn't going to be a service of any kind. They also know that the fleet isn't just going to magic itself better for next week. To still sell restrictive tickets for services that aren't likely to run is wrong.

I agree entirely.

 

[alastair]

I'd definitely be applying to other tocs if I was a member of train crew for Hull Trains, must be very unnerving for them

Indeed. As a matter of interest, what happens to all the HT train crew when service is completely suspended? Are they told to stay at home or expected to report as normal ?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This is the top and bottom of it, regardless of any commercial or reciprocal agreements. Why anyone would believe that LNER should inconvenience their own passengers by adding a trainload from another operator is beyond me.

In my view HT ought to be buying replacement tickets for passengers, where LNER will not agree to commercial ticket acceptance. Anything else is just shoddy and gives the rail industry as a whole a bad name.

 

[TUC]

Some of the comments do reinforce the feeling that some have little understanding of business issues like reputational risk, which can affect your company whether or not you are are the cause of the problem,

 

[Darandio]

Some of the comments do reinforce the feeling that some have little understanding of business issues like reputational risk, which can affect your company whether or not you are are the cause of the problem,

I completely understand thanks. But it also isn't reasonable (or even possible) for LNER to carry trainloads of HT passengers.

 

[TUC]

I completely understand thanks. But it also isn't reasonable (or even possible) for LNER to carry trainloads of HT passengers.

I not suggesting HT shouldn''t reimburse LNER. They should, but in terms of physical space the availability and prices of Advances today does suggest that LNER has the capacity

 

[Failed Unit]

I can see it from both sides. If you have a HT only ticket you took your chance knowing that the 180s fail. If you have an inter available ticket you can use LNER. I am sure the Northern strike isn’t helping but why are people not slagging off EMT and Grand Central both are valid options. Why only LNER

If you look at the loadings on LNER I don’t expect lots of empty seats heading north. (Maybe the London - Newark ones) but will a London - Leeds / Edinburgh service really have 200 spare seats? Is it fair that LNER passengers from Newark need to stand as HT passengers have filled all the seats at Doncaster? (Will the displaced HT passengers give up their seats at Newark or take the view that they paid for a seat so they are entitled to one)

Whatever people’s views on LNER are, EMT and GC are not helping either.

 

[Failed Unit]

I not suggesting HT shouldn''t reimburse LNER. They should, but in terms of physical space the availability and prices of Advances today does suggest that LNER has the capacity

Maybe. But if they have 50 seats why not sell them and get revenue. They need around 200 to cover HT for which they get nothing.

 

[Starmill]

If you have a HT only ticket you took your chance knowing that the 180s fail.

If you could point me to where this information is provided by Hull Trains in advance I'd be grateful?

 

[Failed Unit]

If you could point me to where this information is provided by Hull Trains in advance I'd be grateful?

On their website they publish their performance statistics as does the Orr.

https://www.hulltrains.co.uk/customer-services/how-we-are-performing/

Apologies I know the link is against forum rules but on a mobile device so can’t cut and paste the table.

Basically 1 in 10 services are cancelled. 3 in 10 late.

 

[lincolnshire]

Not 100% sure , but I think you could still buy a Hull Trains only ticket for one of there services yesterday from an LNER station booking office even though they would know about the disruption that Hull Trains was having and the arrangements for passing there passengers on LNER trains.
I bet also Trainline was still selling tickets for Hull Trains only services too yesterday and agin today I bet.