Joint working between Grand Central, Hull Trains and East Coast

[TUC]

On 5 May engineering work has resulted in various joint working between Grand Central, Hull Trains and East Coast.

On Grand Central's Bradford-Kings Cross route passengers are advised to change onto East Coast at Doncaster ascEC are accepting GC tickets. However on the 1543 ex-Bradford (1754 ex-Doncaster) GC passengers are asked to sit in the end carriage only. Anyone know why this is? If its because GC are staffing their own carriage why only this journey whereas paszengers can apparantly sit anywhere on the other joint services that day?


The 1827 Hull-Kings Cross service is billed as a joint HT/GC service. Similarly the 1950 Logndon-Bradford service is billed as joint but, according to the GC website, only for the Doncaster-Bradford section-which is odd adHT don't operate to Bradford. Anyone know whst this means in practice?

 

[anthony263]

On 5 May engineering work has resulted in various joint working between Grand Central, Hull Trains and East Coast.

On Grand Central's Bradford-Kings Cross route passengers are advised to change onto East Coast at Doncaster ascEC are accepting GC tickets. However on the 1543 ex-Bradford (1754 ex-Doncaster) GC passengers are asked to sit in the end carriage only. Anyone know why this is? If its because GC are staffing their own carriage why only this journey whereas paszengers can apparantly sit anywhere on the other joint services that day?


The 1827 Hull-Kings Cross service is billed as a joint HT/GC service. Similarly the 1950 Logndon-Bradford service is billed as joint but, according to the GC website, only for the Doncaster-Bradford section-which is odd adHT don't operate to Bradford. Anyone know whst this means in practice?

This has happened in the past where Hull trains and Grand Centrals' class
180's have been attached together between London & Doncasterbecause of a restriction on the number of paths as a result of engineering work.

 

[telstarbox]

What a sensible idea.

 

[Ebore]

On 5 May engineering work has resulted in various joint working between Grand Central, Hull Trains and East Coast.

On Grand Central's Bradford-Kings Cross route passengers are advised to change onto East Coast at Doncaster ascEC are accepting GC tickets. However on the 1543 ex-Bradford (1754 ex-Doncaster) GC passengers are asked to sit in the end carriage only. Anyone know why this is? If its because GC are staffing their own carriage why only this journey whereas paszengers can apparantly sit anywhere on the other joint services that day?

Could it be that the end carriage might be reserved solely for GC? Or that they are tying to separate legitimate GC passengers from those buying cheaper GC Only tickets and trying it on?

The 1827 Hull-Kings Cross service is billed as a joint HT/GC service. Similarly the 1950 Logndon-Bradford service is billed as joint but, according to the GC website, only for the Doncaster-Bradford section-which is odd adHT don't operate to Bradford. Anyone know whst this means in practice?

I think this might be a bad way of saying a change of train is required, RTT shows the 19:50 is a HT service, splitting at Doncaster for Hull (dep. 21:57) and Sunderland (dep. 22:10) and providing a connection to Bradford (dep. 22:00)

 

[Crossover]

It will almost certainly be doubling up on 180's, splitting/joining at Doncaster. In practice, how this will pan out, remains to be seen...there have been problems in the past where units simply won't talk to each other!

 

[sonic2009]

I don't think all services are joining up together :

Sunderland route :

0918 Sunderland - Doncaster 1112 1A80, formed of a HST.

Passengers transfer to 1A92 1122 Hull Trains to London.

1A80 then forms 1N90 1139 Doncaster - Sunderland 1337 formed of a HST.

Passengers from London for 1N90 arrive at Doncaster on 1S10 London to Edinburgh.

1N90 then forms 1A65 1412 Sunderland to Peterborough 1658

1A65 then forms 1N94 1726 Peterborough to Sunderland 2020, then runs to Heaton.

1823 London to Sunderland retimed to 1950.

1H08 runs as 10 car 180 formed of 1 x HT 180 and 1 x GC 180 to Doncaster arrive 2152, service splits 1H08 runs to Hull at 2157. The 1 x GC 180 at Doncaster then forms 1N96 at 2210 to Sunderland.

The following three services are not running :

12.12 Sunderland to London Kings Cross
18.12 Sunderland to London Kings Cross
13.50 London Kings Cross to Sunderland

Bradford route :

1A81 0915 Bradford Interchange to Doncaster 1023 formed of a 180.

1A81 then forms 5Z83 1044 Doncaster to Bradford Interchange 1146.

5Z83 then forms 1A83 1200 Bradford Interchange to Doncaster 1310

1A83 then forms 1D91 1322 Doncaster to Bradford Interchange 1435

1D91 then forms 1A87 1543 Bradford Interchange to Doncaster 1703

1A87 then forms 1D93 1836 Doncaster to Bradford Interchange 1946

1D93 then forms 5Z95 2005 Bradford Interchange to Doncaster 2106

5Z95 then forms 1D95 2220 Doncaster to Bradford Interchange 2309.

Passengers for Bradford having arrived in to Doncaster on 1H08.

Hope this explains a little more

 

[asylumxl]

It will almost certainly be doubling up on 180's, splitting/joining at Doncaster. In practice, how this will pan out, remains to be seen...there have been problems in the past where units simply won't talk to each other!

Alstom... 'Nuff said really

 

[DarloRich]

It means this in practice:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/5440761707

 

[sonic2009]

It means this in practice:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/5440761707

A multicoloured train :P

 

[DarloRich]

indeed! When i traveled on that service it worked seamlessly.

 

[Erniescooper]

Alstom... 'Nuff said really

Strange that because when the 180 coupler is locked in the out position as the whole fleet now is it becomes exactly the same as the 175 coupler , last time I looked the Alstom maintained 175 units are coupled everyday without incident .

 

[David Goddard]

What a sensible idea.

Here Here! A pretty obvious solution to restricted paths, and makes sure that both services can continue to run. Could do with happening more often really, such as when delays occur and you end up with a GC and an HT (or even 2 GCs, as per lunchtime on 25 March) running out of Kings Cross within a few minutes of each other.

 

[IanXC]

Here Here! A pretty obvious solution to restricted paths, and makes sure that both services can continue to run. Could do with happening more often really, such as when delays occur and you end up with a GC and an HT (or even 2 GCs, as per lunchtime on 25 March) running out of Kings Cross within a few minutes of each other.

Are these workings the only example of different TOCs operating services in one formation?

 

[jimm]

Are these workings the only example of different TOCs operating services in one formation?

Up to the middle of last decade, if the Chiltern Line was closed for engineering work south of Aynho Junction, Chiltern's Birmingham services would work from Banbury to Oxford, where they would couple to Thames sets for the run to Paddington and vice versa.

Once FGW had taken over from Thames and started to use HSTs and 180s on many of the Oxford fasts in place of 166s, it became near-impossible to organise this type of running any more, so Chiltern sets now operate independently to/from Didcot in case of line closures, for passengers to connect with FGW services there, running non-stop through Oxford.

 

[David Goddard]

Probably only happens here because they are both Open Access.
I expect there would be too much red tape for two franchised TOCs to work together like this.

 

[edwin_m]

I was on EMT Nottingham-Manchester a couple of years ago which couldn't go forward due to some problem on the Erewash Valley line. It ended up being coupled to the following Northern service (both 158s) as far as Sheffield via Derby. Only one of the drivers had the appropriate route knowledge, and joining the services together saved a path too.

 

[N Levers]

I was on a Southern 442 which broke down and was coupled to a Gatwick Express 442... They're separate companies right...

 

[Lampshade]

Strange that because when the 180 coupler is locked in the out position as the whole fleet now is it becomes exactly the same as the 175 coupler , last time I looked the Alstom maintained 175 units are coupled everyday without incident .

The 175s have been maintained by the same team at the same purpose-built depot since they were built. The 180s have been shuffled around with different maintenance regimes, it's only now they've started to be consistent.

 

[LE Greys]

Useful idea!

Joint working has happened on the ECML before, for different reasons (namely, the line being owned by three separate companies before 1922) and quite a few coaches were branded 'East Coast Joint Stock'. It's a pity EC's Lincoln service never went ahead, it might have made sense to place all the 180s in a common pool (ECJS maybe) and turn them out for any service necessary. They would need a common livery, of course, but could be branded for individual services with window-stickers. It might even be possible for diagrams to cover two or three different companies.

 

[Eagle]

I thought the ORR didn't take too kindly to operators pooling their stock, as they want a clear delineation between each franchise? (Certainly Virgin got told off for sharing between WC and XC.)

 

[anthony263]

Hasn't this happened on occasion's with FGW and swt. I seem to remember reading about a inccident which shut the line between Westbury and Salisbury trapping a swt service to Salisbury and a FGW service to Portsmouth Harbour. Both were formed of class 158's.

To save cancelling the service I think it was decided to join the two units and run the train to Salisbury via Yeovil Junction.

Certainly it was a good call.

 

[LE Greys]

I thought the ORR didn't take too kindly to operators pooling their stock, as they want a clear delineation between each franchise? (Certainly Virgin got told off for sharing between WC and XC.)

And yet Virgin managed to end up with some of the 350s. That's never made any sense to me, AIUI, they don't even use them. I'm also still looking out for the Scotrail 67 on the Deerstalker, or maybe sub-leases don't count.

Shows you how mad our system is though. The occasional bit of stock-sharing might help to keep costs down for a small operator.

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought the ORR didn't take too kindly to operators pooling their stock, as they want a clear delineation between each franchise? (Certainly Virgin got told off for sharing between WC and XC.)

If the two fleet were being permanently diagramed for interworking they might object (though as OAOs I'm not sure if stock utilisation is within their purview). However as a series of one-offs to keep the service going during engineering work i can't imagine they'd object.

And yet Virgin managed to end up with some of the 350s.

All the 350s are in service with LM so I'm not sure what you mean by that?

 

[LE Greys]

All the 350s are in service with LM so I'm not sure what you mean by that?

It may be an error, but the 2007 P5 showed some 350s as VT, not LM. 2008 didn't repeat this.

 

[Eagle]

It may be an error, but the 2007 P5 showed some 350s as VT, not LM. 2008 didn't repeat this.

That is an error. Prior to November 2007 the 350/1s were split between Central and Silverlink, after that they were all with LM. The 350/2s have been LM since they were introduced mid-2008.

 

[LE Greys]

That is an error. Prior to November 2007 the 350/1s were split between Central and Silverlink, after that they were all with LM. The 350/2s have been LM since they were introduced mid-2008.

That makes sense, thanks.