GNER website

A new open-access operator operated by Alliance Rail Holdings is planning to run services between London King's Cross, Cleethorpes, Bradford Forster Square, Ilkley, and Edinburgh.

GNER want to use updated UK Pendolino (Class 390) trains with six-carriages on the major routes and four-carriages on the Pennine routes.

Surely there'll be objections to using that name?

If they can do Kings Cross to Newcastle non-stop direct hourly, then I'd certainly use them.

(05 Mar 2015, 4:08 pm)MrPottski wrote Surely there'll be objections to using that name?

Apparently not...  

(05 Mar 2015, 4:23 pm)citaro5284 wrote They have just been knocked back on their North Western proposal they had...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Rail_Holdings

Based upon that, I reckon the Edinburgh/Newcastle/London will probably get knocked back for similar reasons. The proposal could be tweaked, for example, starting the service at Hexham or, if the Blyth and Tyne line is ever brought back into passenger use, from Ashington. As there are currently no direct services to London from these areas, would this present a more viable case? (I realise it may be uneconomical to run, more that there's no incumbent)

(05 Mar 2015, 5:20 pm)MurdnunoC wrote Based upon that, I reckon the Edinburgh/Newcastle/London will probably get knocked back for similar reasons. The proposal could be tweaked, for example, starting the service at Hexham or, if the Blyth and Tyne line is ever brought back into passenger use, from Ashington. As there are currently no direct services to London from these areas, would this present a more viable case? (I realise it may be uneconomical to run, more that there's no incumbent)

I can live with the NatEx 425/435. 

I can understand capacity issues, and that was my first thought with regards to the ECML, but "refused the application for reasons that included protection of the revenues of Virgin Trains (the incumbent inter-city operator on the WCML)"? 

We're seriously knocking back an application for passenger choice, based on protecting profit of a private company?

ECML may be a different kettle of fish, as the new top speed, and the non-stop Newcastle to London services, may be exactly what the Tories are looking for in their infrastructure plans. High speed link, and someone else is wanting to pay for it!

(05 Mar 2015, 6:29 pm)aureolin wrote I can understand capacity issues, and that was my first thought with regards to the ECML, but "refused the application for reasons that included protection of the revenues of Virgin Trains (the incumbent inter-city operator on the WCML)"? 

We're seriously knocking back an application for passenger choice, based on protecting profit of a private company?

ECML may be a different kettle of fish, as the new top speed, and the non-stop Newcastle to London services, may be exactly what the Tories are looking for in their infrastructure plans. High speed link, and someone else is wanting to pay for it!

Mine too. 

I found the WCML refusal rather alarming. If the government are protecting revenues to this extent then it might as well be nationalised.  

Surely it's because VT have to be able to pay the Treasury their promised premium on the line? Competition, while being good for the customer, could drive down prices, reduce ridership on VT and cause them to fail to pay the premium - it would be a case of the government shooting itself in the foot!

That's why open access operators have to prove that their proposals don't just abstract traffic from the existing operator.

(06 Mar 2015, 8:36 am)eezypeazy wrote Surely it's because VT have to be able to pay the Treasury their promised premium on the line? Competition, while being good for the customer, could drive down prices, reduce ridership on VT and cause them to fail to pay the premium - it would be a case of the government shooting itself in the foot!

That's why open access operators have to prove that their proposals don't just abstract traffic from the existing operator.

But surely the government shouldn't be preventing competition, on the basis that it may result in a private operator being unable to meet their contractual commitments? We have to ask ourselves what is this all about, I feel. Are we trying to offer the best quality and value for the customer, or are we trying to ensure maximum profit for a private company? 

You know yourself that there would be hell on if Arriva and Go North East agreed not to compete on the Durham Road corridor and East Durham coast road, because it financially impacted each other in doing so. The competition commission would be all over it like a rash, and quite rightly.

(06 Mar 2015, 8:32 pm)aureolin wrote But surely the government shouldn't be preventing competition, on the basis that it may result in a private operator being unable to meet their contractual commitments? We have to ask ourselves what is this all about, I feel. Are we trying to offer the best quality and value for the customer, or are we trying to ensure maximum profit for a private company? 

You know yourself that there would be hell on if Arriva and Go North East agreed not to compete on the Durham Road corridor and East Durham coast road, because it financially impacted each other in doing so. The competition commission would be all over it like a rash, and quite rightly.

Or (mind eezypeazy, there's a bold, generalised sweeping statement coming up), they just nationalise the lot.

Competition is slim to nil up and down the country, with small sections having a couple of toc's, calling at differing stations on the way.

I remember when Grand Central wanted to set up and whoever was operating the ECML (there have been that many), argued the case that competition would damage their business. Think they said something that the competition was un-sustainable too.

I think this is the right place to put this - basically, they've got the go ahead for services from Blackpool to London. I am sure, however, that I read somewhere that they might have to use Crystal Palace as a terminus due to the HS2 works and limited capacity to/from EUS:

http://www.alliancerail.co.uk

Interesting that, Arriva can invest in brand new tilting trains but not upgrade the current elderly Grand Central fleet...

(25 Aug 2015, 4:31 pm)GX03 SVC wrote Interesting that, Arriva can invest in brand new tilting trains but not upgrade the current elderly Grand Central fleet...

They're getting more 180's at some point (when Hull Trains get their new units?) to replace the HSTs?

(25 Aug 2015, 5:16 pm)tyresmoke wrote They're getting more 180's at some point (when Hull Trains get their new units?) to replace the HSTs?

I usually get a HST on my trip to KGX and a 180 on the return leg. I much prefer the HSTs to the 180s and will be sad to see them leave the fleet when the extra 180s come on line. They really need to refurb the standard class of the 180s. They are looking so internally tired. First class isn't much better...