Do things such as poor infrastructure and rail regulation prevent TOCs making money, and as a result pay less in premiums/require more subsidy?
For example, LM wanted to extend their Crewe services to Liverpool and divert a Birmingham to Liverpool service to Preston. However the ORR? Prevented this and therefore may have prevented LM making more money. If this had been allowed to go ahead, would this have reduced LM's dependency on revenue support?
An example related to infrastructure could be the Salisbury to Exeter line. The long single track sections reduce paths and increase journey times. If this was doubled enough to provide a half-hourly London Waterloo-Exeter service would SWT make more money and therefore pay higher premiums to the DfT?
In conclusion if we allowed TOCs to run services they want to run commercially could this overall reduce the total amount of subsidy to rail operators?
For example, LM wanted to extend their Crewe services to Liverpool and divert a Birmingham to Liverpool service to Preston. However the ORR? Prevented this and therefore may have prevented LM making more money. If this had been allowed to go ahead, would this have reduced LM's dependency on revenue support?
An example related to infrastructure could be the Salisbury to Exeter line. The long single track sections reduce paths and increase journey times. If this was doubled enough to provide a half-hourly London Waterloo-Exeter service would SWT make more money and therefore pay higher premiums to the DfT?
In conclusion if we allowed TOCs to run services they want to run commercially could this overall reduce the total amount of subsidy to rail operators?