Platinum Failure?

158881 · Post by **158881** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:03 am

I am wondering have Platinum Trains failed in their bid to start up a London Kings Cross - Aberdeen service? According to wikipedia it says that modern railways reported that they failed in their bid to start but ive not heard it anywhere???

Also their website is like some sort of recruitment agency or something now!

Shame if they have failed on something pointless - I wanted to be on a adelante while watching TV and on the internet!

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:32 pm

The additional paths went to Hull Trains, Grand Central and the people wanting to run to Bradford, whoever they may be.

I read it in one of the two latest Modern Railways, though I'm not sure which it was.

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:48 pm

The Office of Rail Regulation rejected Platinum Trains application for access rights. Firm Rights were granted to Hull Trains for their existing services (they were operating under provisional rights), applications for other Yorkshire destinations were rejected. Grand Central were awarded rights for an extra service each way. Grand Union (affiliated with Grand Central) were recommended to be awarded provisional rights for their West Yorkshire services on the East Coast. The full story is on the ORR website: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/category.1993

GlennMitchell · Post by **GlennMitchell** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:18 pm

Why not give some more to NXEC instead of open access operators? They are paying a ridiculous sum of money to the government for rights to run trains on the ECML after all.

158881 · Post by **158881** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:18 pm

GlennMitchell wrote:Why not give some more to NXEC instead of open access operators? They are paying a ridiculous sum of money to the government for rights to run trains on the ECML after all.

Why not give the franchise to somebody else instead of NX?

GlennMitchell · Post by **GlennMitchell** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:30 pm

I don't think they're too bad to be honest, just as long as its not stagecoach that's fine by me

Glenn

yorkie · Post by **yorkie** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:31 am

GlennMitchell wrote:Why not give some more to NXEC instead of open access operators? They are paying a ridiculous sum of money to the government for rights to run trains on the ECML after all.

Because the ORR are not biased like that, thank goodness....!

GlennMitchell · Post by **GlennMitchell** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:20 pm

Fair enough I can see that they want to have more competition which is always a good thing for consumers but at least have a level playing field, where all companies must pay something to the DfT as well as track access or I think it is a bit unfair for the franchise paying company to lose out on customers using open access operators who don't need to pay franchise fees.

Glenn

yorkie · Post by **yorkie** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:30 pm

Yep, it's not a level playing field. Some franchises actually benefit from that (e.g. Virgin able to stop WSMR picking up 'their' passengers!). But the franchise mess is the fault of the DfT. The ORR fulfils its legal obligations to give Open Access a fair chance and I agree with that.

I think Platinum Trains was a terrible waste of capacity and non-stop EDB-KGX was never going to work reliably so I think they made the right decision in refusing to accept their proposal.

GlennMitchell · Post by **GlennMitchell** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:09 pm

yorkie wrote:Yep, it's not a level playing field. Some franchises actually benefit from that (e.g. Virgin able to stop WSMR picking up 'their' passengers!). But the franchise mess is the fault of the DfT. The ORR fulfils its legal obligations to give Open Access a fair chance and I agree with that.

I think Platinum Trains was a terrible waste of capacity and non-stop EDB-KGX was never going to work reliably so I think they made the right decision in refusing to accept their proposal.

That just about sums it up I think. I don't particularly mind Hull trains as they don't try to "poach" passengers from NXEC, unlike Grand Central, who advertise blatantly everywhere how "cheap" they are to York, which I think is unfair. I think it would be a lot fairer if they were made to run straight to Eaglescliffe (possibly with a stop at Thirsk, not Northallerton) so that they do not take passengers from stations directly served by NXEC.

Glenn

yorkie · Post by **yorkie** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:18 pm

I don't think I agree with that.

Hull Trains are able to take passengers who would otherwise be forced to use NXEC, from Doncaster, Retford and Grantham. Only Newark and Peterborough miss out.

Yet GC are not allowed to call at any of these stations as they would be considered 'abstracting' NXEC's revenue. It's not considered abstractive for HT though! Which I find odd.

I don't think that open access operators should be prevented from providing choice, but the ORR has to be satisfied that the open access service does provide a useful service that would not otherwise be provided, such as direct trains from Sunderland/Hartlepool and Hull/Selby to London. But once that requirement is fulfilled there should be no issue with them picking up at stations that already have a service.

GlennMitchell · Post by **GlennMitchell** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:07 pm

Fair enough. I think that the W&S system (I think mentioned before) is better there though (i.e. only pick up/set down only at Banbury)

Glenn

Atomic Systems

Platinum Failure?

Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?

Re: Platinum Failure?