BBC - New delay for troubled rail firm GC

Tony Polson wrote:
> "nickw7coc@" <nickw7coc@> wrote:
>> Continuing technical problems have forced rail firm Grand Central to
>> delay a return to full service.
>
>
> The longer this goes on, the less chance that Grand Central's sister
> companies will succeed in their other Open Access applications.
>
> So in a way, the delay could be a good thing.
>

The longer this goes on the longer they're not delaying National
Express, FCC, Hull Trains, Transpennine, EMT and Northern services. And
that's how they've managed to affect my plans a few times now.

Philip.

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:hbd6741pmfajau8fe9g14gdrkgaepjsjtc@...
> Pyromancer <pyromancer@beeching.stormshadow.com> wrote:
>>
>>IIRC Grand Central's main problem is with unreliable equipment,
>>seemingly due to the overhaul contractor having not done things
>>properly. They were only lumbered with the dregs of the HST fleet in
>>the first place because of the incredibly long delays in getting
>>approval to run (which were also outwith their control, I believe).
>
>
> The problems with the equipment are Grand Central's responsibility. As
> I pointed out at the time (no need for 20/20 hindsight) the overhauls
> were not properly managed from the outset.
>
> More testing could have been done to establish reliability before the
> trains entered service. Instead, a cavalier approach appears to have
> been taken, putting equipment into service before its reliability (or
> lack of it) was known.
>
Of course Mr Polson, with his crystal ball, would have known in advance
about many of the problems which Grand Central have experienced. Remember
that cobbling up HSTs from everyone's left overs was not Grand Central's
choice. It was forced upon them. They wanted to use ex-MML HSTs but the DfT
(who do not interfere in rolling stock allocation?) ensured that they could
not have them. Then they wanted to use 67s and Mark 3s but Network rail
won't let 67s go above 100 m.p.h. on the ECML. Also NR insisted that GC
could only have 125 m.p.h paths, but GC say that the paths they have been
given can be operated at 110 m.p.h.

GC are providing a necessary service from Sunderland, one which GNER
wouldn't provide. And NXEC only decided that they wanted to run more trains
to Bradford after GC's proposal.

Peter Fox

Tony Polson wrote:
> "nickw7coc@" <nickw7coc@> wrote:
>> Continuing technical problems have forced rail firm Grand Central to
>> delay a return to full service.
>
>
> The longer this goes on, the less chance that Grand Central's sister
> companies will succeed in their other Open Access applications.
>
The chances of Grand Central's sister companies getting a look in are
slim enough as it is, given:

a) GC's atrocious reliability and punctuality; and
b) AIUI, GC's main source of revenue is abstraction from franchised TOCs

Mind you, Wrexham & Shropshire raise a very valid point about Virgin's
proposed Wrexham service, in that Virgin should be made to prove that it
will not be primarily revenue abstractive (which, with the proposed
departure and journey times, it almost certainly will be). ;-)

Cheers,

Barry

"Philip Hardy" <philip@phardy.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lKmdncO3lZ4Om-7VnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Tony Polson wrote:
>> "nickw7coc@" <nickw7coc@> wrote:
>>> Continuing technical problems have forced rail firm Grand Central to
>>> delay a return to full service.
>>
>>
>> The longer this goes on, the less chance that Grand Central's sister
>> companies will succeed in their other Open Access applications.
>>
>> So in a way, the delay could be a good thing.
>>
>
> The longer this goes on the longer they're not delaying National Express,
> FCC, Hull Trains, Transpennine, EMT and Northern services. And that's how
> they've managed to affect my plans a few times now.

In the interests of balance, it should be pointed out that GC have bailed
NXEC out a few times by taking NX passengers when the service has gone
pear-shaped as a result of NX train failure.

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:9eg6745hsnd8uj8ku5c1ii8v6v81p72k8u@...

> If it was reliable, it could possibly be described as "desirable" in
> order to give Sunderland a direct service to London. But not
> "necessary" by any stretch of the imagination, when GNER/NXEC offer
> frequent services from Newcastle and there are easy connections from
> Sunderland via the Metro.

GC also serves Hartlepool and Eaglescliffe. Hartlepool's previously poor
rail service was a train an hour to Newcastle or Middlesbrough. Hartlepool
and Teesside deserved better rail links than they had. It would be a pity if
GC's unreliability were to scupper the worthwhile aim of better services
along the Durham coast.

> It isn't personal abuse. No doubt the Grand Central team are very
> nice people. I am merely pointing out that the skills needed to run a
> train operating company are difficult to find when you choose the
> wrong kind of people for senior management positions. Neither is this
> about me, because I doubt I could have done any better; being a
> railway enthusiast does not qualify me for doing the job.

Facts:

1. Ian Yeowart who started GC is NOT a railway enthusiast.
2. Tom Clift, present MD, is a former TOC MD (Valley lines). Everyone agrees
that he did a superb job there.

Peter Fox

On 10 Jul, 09:40, "Peter Fox" <peterfoxd...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Facts:
>
> 1. Ian Yeowart who started GC is NOT a railway enthusiast.
> 2. Tom Clift, present MD, is a former TOC MD (Valley lines). Everyone agrees
> that he did a superb job there.

I suppose it partly comes down to silk purses and pig's ears. No
matter how good the people at the top are if they're not supported by
a strong team and are basically overseeing the folly of poor project
management their empire is destined to go down the tubes. Quite
comical with hindsight the extent to which GC were flagged up by GNER
Mk1 as being a major contributory factor to the developing black hole
in their books. A real "being savaged by a dead sheep" outcome as
things have turned out albeit the "dead sheep" does occasionally act
as an unwitting obstacle in their paths when it has a particularly off
day.

--
gordon

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:p6ga74tfvmqskjej2qrmr9uvh92uakdd26@...
> "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@> wrote:
>
>>Tony Polson wrote:
>>> Kester.Eddy@ wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 11:50 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>>> However, taken as a whole, the rules would more accurately be
>>> described as "A Licence for the Grossly Incompetent Virgin Trains to
>>> Print Money Without Any Fear of Competition".
>>
>>To be fair though - the DfT letter appears to suggest that _any_ future
>>WCML
>>franchisee would have the benefit of MoC, not just VT... But they are
>>clearly dropping a heavy hint to ORR - I wonder if the present ORR
>>hierarchy
>>will prove as malleable?
>
>
> DfT Rail simply *have* to ask for it to be extended beyond the current
> franchise. Otherwise ORR would terminate it at the earliest
> practicable opportunity, putting DfT Rail squarely in the firing line
> for precisely the lucrative lawsuit from Virgin Trains that all this
> double dealing is meant to avoid.
>
> Once the extension of Moderation of Competition is in place, DfT are
> off the hook. Then it can easily be dropped from the next franchise.
>
> I don't like any of this, but it clearly has to be done for the sake
> of expediency. One Virgin Trains have left the scene in 2012, sanity
> can be allowed to prevail once again.

If MoC is to be in place for the West Coast franchisee, then the same should
happen in reverse to prevent West Coast from competing with open access
operators. I'm thinking of WSMR, where Virgin are planning to compete on the
Wrexham flow, yet WSMR are restricted as to where they can serv in the West
Midlands. Virgin's plan sounds rather like an abuse of a monopoly position -
perhaps the Competition Commission might have a view?

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:12:58 +0100, Tony Polson
<docnews2011@> wrote:
>
>
>The situation appears desperate. There doesn't seem to be any way to
>put a positive gloss on it, although I had to laugh at Pyromancer's
>praise for Grand Central's good customer service - this from a company
>that cannot run more than a third of its scheduled services to London.
>;-)

Yet manages to run trains to Kings Cross around engineering work when
NXEC are bustituting every single train (AFAICT) between Peterborough
and Stevenage at weekends.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Mike Roebuck wrote:

>> The situation appears desperate. There doesn't seem to be any way to
>> put a positive gloss on it, although I had to laugh at Pyromancer's
>> praise for Grand Central's good customer service - this from a company
>> that cannot run more than a third of its scheduled services to London.
>> ;-)

> Yet manages to run trains to Kings Cross around engineering work when
> NXEC are bustituting every single train (AFAICT) between Peterborough
> and Stevenage at weekends.

Not the last weekend in June they didn't. I booked a GC saver single so
I didn't need to faff with the bus, but there was no sign of the GC
train, so they (GC) swapped the ticket for a normal saver single and send
us to NXEC.
--
Chris Johns