Speculation: How could Hull Trains and Grand Central be saved?

[yorkie]

See: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mps-fighting-to-save-hull-trains.205711/#post-4635157

Could the companies merge together, or one take over the other?

Or could their operations be taken over by another operator such as LNER?

 

[JonathanH]

But they are profitable under normal circumstances.

In which case, it would seem reasonable for the DfT (through LNER) to simply 'buy them out' at some kind of fire sale price, perhaps not even taking on the leases of the 802s and integrate the operation with LNER using LNER's current 5-car 800s (although I appreciate that the 800 fleet is quite tight if they ultimately want to send them to Middlesbrough as well).

 

[py_megapixel]

In which case, it would seem reasonable for the DfT (through LNER) to simply 'buy them out' at some kind of fire sale price, perhaps not even taking on the leases of the 802s and integrate the operation with LNER using LNER's current 5-car 800s.

Are there enough 800s to go around to operate the same timetable as Hull Trains in addition to the current (pre-Covid) LNER timetable?

If LNER didn't want the operational burden of an extra class, maybe the 802s could be transferred to Great Western in exchange for the same number of 800 moving from Great Western to LNER.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'll quote myself from the other thread on this topic:

Honestly I would suggest that the DfT should let Hull Trains die and then run LNER services in the same paths to avoid cutting services to Hull. Not because I am opposed to open access operations - I think they are a great idea - but because bailing them out sets a precedent for other open access operators that if they build up enough loyal users on their service then the government will pay for it.

Of course, adding more services on LNER is not as simple as just flicking a switch, but the Hull Trains rolling stock is now very similar to LNER (and so could transfer fairly easily, one would hope) and pathing wouldn't be a concern to just move services between TOCs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am no fan of Open Access - it tends to be abstractive and get in the way somewhat, generally with short trains on lines where we should be maxing out lengths, and use paths (like on the WCML) which might be better used for resilience (i.e. left empty).

So I'd say yes, Hull Trains into LNER (and change how it operates so it doesn't result in short trains on the south ECML, e.g. portion work it with something else that's quiet past Donny, perhaps incorporate one or more of the GC routes if they are busy enough), the 80x to some other 80x operator (or LNER), and GC (and indeed First East Coast) to just go away - the latter could change their 80x order into additional units for GWR or additional vehicles for GWR's existing units to take some 5s to 9 depending on how far along they are. Problem solved.

 

[py_megapixel]

So I'd say yes, Hull Trains into LNER, the 80x to some other 80x operator, and GC to just go away. Problem solved.

Given the short forming that people have been reporting on LNER I think that adding more services and without more fleet would be, simply put, a terrible idea.
Could GWR possibly take on the Hull 802s in exchange for the same number of 5-car 800s going to LNER, to minimise the burden of having multiple classes?

As for Grand Central, they don't have the best reputation and they do a lot of short trains in valuable paths, but the fact that they continue to survive surely means that their services are fairly well-used?

 

[Energy]

If HT went under I would send the units to TPE, they are already owned by the same ROSCO, both operators are owned by First Group, they are both maintained at Doncaster, etc.

LNER can take over the service and order a few more 800s, they already are looking for 10 more electric units to allow them to fully retire the Intercity 225s as these are very likely to be 801s it would be fairly easy to include a few extra 800s in this order.

 

[py_megapixel]

If HT went under I would send the units to TPE, they are already owned by the same ROSCO, both operators are owned by First Group, they are both maintained at Doncaster, etc.

Do TPE have any use for more 802s? They already have an abundance of DMUs - more than they need by the time the full Nova fleet is in service, given that the 185s aren't scheduled for transfer anywhere else.

 

[Domh245]

Could GWR possibly take on the Hull 802s in exchange for the same number of 5-car 800s going to LNER, to minimise the burden of having multiple classes?

It'd be far easier for LNER to take the 802s given the minimal differences, than the contractual nightmare of moving 800s about. You'd have to increase the requirements for Agility Trains East and correspondingly decrease the requirements for Agility Trains West, with associated costs for changing the contracts.

 

[MotCO]

If paths down to Kings Cross are tight, and if both Hull Trains and Grand Central operated 5 car 802s or compatible trains, could they not be combined as a single train and separated at Doncaster or wherever they diverge? This would reduce the number of staff hours required overall and will make some savings.

 

[py_megapixel]

It'd be far easier for LNER to take the 802s given the minimal differences, than the contractual nightmare of moving 800s about. You'd have to increase the requirements for Agility Trains East and correspondingly decrease the requirements for Agility Trains West, with associated costs for changing the contracts.

I presume the main concern would be multiple working; are 802s and 800s capable of working in multiple together?

 

[Energy]

If paths down to Kings Cross are tight, and if both Hull Trains and Grand Central operated 5 car 802s or compatible trains, could they not be combined as a single train and separated at Doncaster or wherever they diverge? This would reduce the number of staff hours required overall and will make some savings.

They have done this before with Adelante's but that was due to engineering works. I don't think cutting the staff would make too much of a difference though as before the pandemic both were making money, while they are shut I would imagine most of the staff have been furloughed with only some office staff to keep the company semi running and some maintenance staff to keep the trains working.

 

[Energy]

I presume the main concern would be multiple working; are 802s and 800s capable of working in multiple together?

I don't think they can in service, only to drag a unit if it has failed. They have a few differences which means they have slightly different computers so an 800 can't work with an 802.

 

[Chester1]

Social distancing will become harder to maintain as things get back to normal. Its in the public interest to have as much capacity as possible. Couldn't the government pay Hull Trains (and Grand Central) to run services and ticket them as LNER until some point next year? They could then relaunch or fold.

 

[yorkie]

Social distancing will become harder to maintain as things get back to normal. Its in the public interest to have as much capacity as possible. Couldn't the government pay Hull Trains (and Grand Central) to run services and ticket them as LNER until some point next year? They could then relaunch or fold.

Or, being even more radical here, could track access charges be lowered, so that more of the cost of running the railway is with Network Rail, rather than the TOCs?

For franchised TOCs, it won't make a material difference who pays (it's ultimately taxpayers either way) but it would make a more level playing field for open access operators?

However the Government is probably not keen to save the open access operators, so I am not sure any of these ideas will come to fruition.

 

[Domh245]

I don't think they can in service, only to drag a unit if it has failed. They have a few differences which means they have slightly different computers so an 800 can't work with an 802.

I was under the impression that they could work in multiple. Certainly shouldn't be beyond the wit of Hitachi to make them talk to each other properly during service

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think they can in service, only to drag a unit if it has failed. They have a few differences which means they have slightly different computers so an 800 can't work with an 802.

This sort of thing is hardly difficult to sort out.

 

[Clansman]

I'll quote myself from the other thread on this topic:

In principle, I'd agree. But saying that open access operators should 'die' would only be relevant if the situation affecting their ability to feasably operate was entirely their own doing. Bailing out an Open Access Operator won't set any negative precedent in future so long as the government is able to set clear red lines as to which situations would be classed as extenuating to the extent where it'd merrit such financial assistance.

 

[Energy]

This sort of thing is hardly difficult to sort out.

Surprisingly it appears to be quite difficult, there was another thread on their compatibility and if I remember correctly the differences between the units (such as the brakes) mean that they aren't compatible. Clarence Yard said they wouldn't be able to run together due to different maintenance and contractual reasons (one was done under IEP, the other was not).

 

[DoubleO]

"GC (and indeed First East Coast) to just go away"

Wow, let's hope no GC staff or indeed FEC staff are reading this thread eh

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow, let's hope no GC staff or indeed FEC staff are reading this thread eh

Hopefully they could be found jobs on franchised TOCs, filling positions that people have left. The railway is pretty much always recruiting.

 

[Ianno87]

Hopefully they could be found jobs on franchised TOCs, filling positions that people have left. The railway is pretty much always recruiting.

OAO staff tend to be focused in "local" areas where jobs with franchised operators may be very hard to come by.

To be, feels very imprudent to the UK railway to throw away such local well formed teams of people who know their customers because we-don't-like-Open-Access.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be, feels very imprudent to the UK railway to throw away such local well formed teams of people who know their customers because we-don't-like-Open-Access.

It also seems imprudent to have these primarily abstractive services clogging up busy mainlines with short trains.

 

[Sandy2]

This thread feels quite premature to me.

GC are still investing in the ramp up for their Blackpool services so they certainly don’t look like a company fearing for the future.
Both GC and Hull Trains are owned by Arriva/First respectively and I’m sure that their owning groups will pay their bills until the time they can return to profitable running returns.

 

[py_megapixel]

This thread feels quite premature to me.
GC are still investing in the ramp up for their Blackpool services so they certainly don’t look like a company fearing for the future.

I agree, but isn't the west coast operation technically a separate entity or something? That's what I read.

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree, but isn't the west coast operation technically a separate entity or something? That's what I read.

Sort of. The scheme was advanced by Alliance Rail and they were the ones that secured the access rights for the service on behalf of what was supposed to be Great North Western Railway (all subsidiaries of Arriva by this time). However once they got serious about actually operating the service (remember that Alliance originally gained authorisation for this service in 2015 with May 2018 the target for service introduction but the rights lapsed and they had to re-apply for them) they transferred the whole shooting match to Grand Central for delivery of services.

So as far as I'm aware the west coast operation is absolutely part of Grand Central (also an Arriva company remember) but it got its start under a separate company and I'm not quite clear on what Alliance's role now is in terms of the new operation (if indeed they have one at all).

 

[Energy]

I agree, but isn't the west coast operation technically a separate entity or something? That's what I read.

It was originally Alliance Rail Holdings with the branding Great North Western Railway before it got transferred to Grand Central by Arriva (parent of both Alliance and GC).

 

[py_megapixel]

Sort of. The scheme was advanced by Alliance Rail and they were the ones that secured the access rights for the service on behalf of what was supposed to be Great North Western Railway (all subsidiaries of Arriva by this time). However once they got serious about actually operating the service (remember that Alliance originally gained authorisation for this service in 2015 with May 2018 the target for service introduction but the rights lapsed and they had to re-apply for them) they transferred the whole shooting match to Grand Central for delivery of services.

So as far as I'm aware the west coast operation is absolutely part of Grand Central (also an Arriva company remember) but it got its start under a separate company and I'm not quite clear on what Alliance's role now is in terms of the new operation (if indeed they have one at all).

It was originally Alliance Rail Holdings with the branding Great North Western Railway before it got transferred to Grand Central by Arriva (parent of both Alliance and GC).

Thanks, that's cleared it up for me

 

[Energy]

I'm not quite clear on what Alliance's role now is in terms of the new operation (if indeed they have one at all).

I don't think they have any role in the WCML operation now since they routes got transferred to Grand Central.

 

[si404]

It also seems imprudent to have these primarily abstractive services clogging up busy mainlines with short trains.

There's explicitly a test to make sure that Open Access services are 'not primarily abstractive'. Are you saying that the DfT and ORR failed repeatedly to apply that (Dec '99, Jan '09, Feb '10, Mar '16 for Hull Trains, Mar '06, Jan '09, Feb '10, Aug '14 for Grand Central) in the case of the ECML? Odd, given it's the main reason why they drop other open access proposals, and why (other than HEx and Eurostar) there's just these 2 Open Access operators.

As for clogging up busy mainlines, despite 16 Open Access trains each way per day (7 Hull/Beverley, 5 Sunderland, 4 Bradford) on the ECML - the equivalent of 1 an hour, LNER seemed to find the room for an extra 1.5tph (a Newcastle and half a Middlesbrough) between the 2016 timetable and the 2020 (now 2021/22) timetable.