Well that's not how the rolling-stock market works, as you know.
There isn't a fat controller who can shunt their own assets around.
True; but hasn't a 'guiding mind' for the rail industry been strongly recommended on a number of occasions? Surely such a 'guiding mind' should be given powers to organise who gets what stock.
I don’t disapprove of GC getting the 221s on the the basis that XC are only allowed 7 units as dictated by the DfT so it’s not as if they are depriving XC of additional capacity as there are still 11 left or possibly 4 or 5 should Grand Union get a look in. It also allows GC to gain experience of this type of unit should the similar 222s head their way.
It has been suggested on another topic that the 7 units to XC may be a preliminary thing and the Government may 'drip feed' more at a later date once Avanti has been able to completely withdraw all their Voyagers.
So you do not think that Grand Central passengers deserve a reliable service right now because it does not affect you and yours? Better to strand someone at say Eaglescliffe or Pontefract due to yet another failed 180, than to stand for 1hr 20min despite getting to where they were going presumably on time.
I think
both Grand Central and CrossCountry passengers
deserve a good service. By the sound of it, neither are currently getting a good service (GC due to unreliability and XC due to lack of capacity). Given that XC's probably is capacity, they should be given more trains - since GC's problem is reliability then I would argue that the solution there is to fix the trains, rather than getting more of them. The XC125s have already gone, if the two Voyagers already with GC had gone to XC instead they could have allowed XC to replace one of the IC125 diagrams (but not both) without a short-term reduction in capacity (on paper at least). Alternatively, if the XC125s had been kept until Avanti released more Voyagers the first two 221s could have gone to GC on an interim basis (while XC wait for Avanti to release enough Voyagers to replace all the XC125s and the issues with the 180s are sorted out) without making XC passengers any worse off than they are already. As it is, XC passengers have been given a worse suituation and GC have had an improvement.
It obvious that XC getting the remaining 13 x 221’s isn’t going to happen so if GC end up getting 10 x 221’s to replace the awful unreliable 180’s and XC ends up with the other 3 x 221’s on top of the 7 they’re getting then it’s better for the greater good surely as this can happen far quicker than either company waiting for the 222’s. Or does the world not work in that way in your eyes? Do you only look at what affects you?
I see the 180s as an asset with, potentially, 13-18 years life ahead of them - and as 14 five-car sets would appear to a good fit to the size of GC's operation (I've not seen any reports of a lack seats on GC - only unreliability - so presumably crowding isn't an issue) I think getting them to run reliably would be the best outcome for all concerned. Take these scenarios:
- XC has all 78 Voyagers, plus all the 222s, and GC has all 14 class 180s
- XC has 68 Voyagers, GC has the other 10 Voyagers and the 222s and 180s are standing in sidings somewhere
- XC has all 78 Voyagers, GC has all the 222s and the 180s are standing in sidings somewhere
Assuming Grand Central would be able to provide a reliable service with 14 class 180s the first of those outcomes is surely the best option for passengers in general. Clearly, there is a need for the 180s to step back a bit to give time to work on them to provide the reliable service necessary; the current short-term loan of two Voyagers could have done that, but CrossCountry needed cover in the short-to-medium term (in the form of the IC125s) and the Government have taken that away.