Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

[357]

The actual seats are nicer but it's very high density and feels like a cattle wagon.

I find myself I have more space in Lumo airline seats than LNER!

I agree that if you want a table then Lumo probably isn't the best choice.

 

[43074]

We don’t know that as it is an alternative history. If the lumo paths hadn’t been approved it is quite conceivable that the ECML timetable recast would have been implemented before this year with additional servcies and seats provided between London and Edinburgh. Arguably more seats than are provided now.

That's totally disingenuous as an argument, how would 5 trains per day each way in the timetable materially affect the deliverability or otherwise of that timetable given the number of issues with it? Huntingdon to Woodwalton 4 tracking (among other infrastructure upgrades) not going ahead and issues with freight pathing have been far more significant barriers to it going ahead.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s fair to say that Lumo- which is almost entirely revenue abstractive, no matter how hard the ORR tried to argue otherwise- only got their OA licences in 2016 and 2024 because of similar political pressure from the other side of the spectrum.

If OA operators are charged the full, non-subsidised, cost of their paths then fine. But they are not and, more importantly, if they were then business cases for Lumo and Grand Central would go straight out of the window.

As for Grand Central’s revenue abstraction from York, there is a very good reason why GNER were so very angry when GC’s OA application was granted in 2006. As Christopher Garnett pointed out, GC were being charged less than GNER and were using that discount to undercut GNER. Not much has changed since 2006; Garnett was right then and the same argument applies now.

It isn’t fair to say Lumo is almost entirely revenue abstractive. That is just your assertion because you don’t like OA. It has no basis in fact - I have dealt with that on another thread - and political pressure was not applied to grant it rights (not a licence).

You are absolutely correct that if OA was charged the full cost of its paths, they would fold. But that’s not the current system - everyone pays only marginal costs plus markups where the market can afford. It was done that way to encourage model shift to rail.

Your mention of CG and his assertion that GC were being charged less than GNER is useful because the Judge in the subsequent High Court Case found otherwise. GC and GNER were being charged on exactly the same basis.

The Fixed Track Access Charge was found to be an “artificial construct”, designed to flow residual funding monies (after Grant and Charges) from the DfT to NR. It was a form of laundering Grant, not a proper cost charge and TOCs were protected from the annual variations in FTAC, which could be huge either way.

In that Court Case it was stated that LRIC charging was preferred by the ORR but NR was then in no position to allocate its costs correctly. That position has now changed and in PR18 NR did a lot of work in allocating LRIC to Operator and Service Group. If the “market can bear” test is removed from the Regs by the forthcoming legislation, then LRIC charging (probably on a per train mile basis) could well be introduced in 2029.

In the meantime Lumo will shortly be paying more per train mile in ICC than LNER will be “paying” in FTAC! That shows how bonkers the system has become and how it badly needs revising so everyone is charged (or in the case of GBR allocated costs) on the same transparent basis.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's totally disingenuous as an argument, how would 5 trains per day each way in the timetable materially affect the deliverability or otherwise of that timetable given the number of issues with it? Huntingdon to Woodwalton 4 tracking (among other infrastructure upgrades) not going ahead and issues with freight pathing have been far more significant barriers to it going ahead.

Really?

Youll have to wait for my memoirs.

 

[43074]

Really?

Youll have to wait for my memoirs.

Those might be a bit biased towards an NR point of view though Not completely sure NR themselves are totally relaxed with the timetable going ahead given the performance risks attached.

"Freight" was a bit of a loose description on my part, but certainly the FOCs remain unhappy with the outcome, and I'm not sure omitting 5 trains a day each way, mostly at off peak times and with sub-optimal paths themselves, would have made that much of a difference to the overall structure of the timetable and how freight fit around the long distance pattern. Especially given the number of freight paths which at various stages couldn't be accommodated.

 

[vuzzeho]

Most people do not use trains. Only a very small minority of people regularly use trains.

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

 

[HSTEd]

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

We have National Transportation Survey statistics for England from 2023.

The response for frequency of Surface Rail use for that year was as follows (from NTS0313):

• three or more times per week - 5%
• once or twice per week - 4%
• less than once a week, more than once or twice a month - 4%
• once or twice a month - 11%
• less than once or twice per month, more than once or twice per year - 16%
• once or twice per year - 18%
• less than once or twice per year - 42%

Whilst most people do occasionally use the surface railway, the fraction that use it regularly is rather small.

The fraction of people who use the surface railway three or more times per year is 40%
The fraction of people who use the surface railway at least once a month is 24%

EDIT:

Given that the mean number of journeys per person (in the UK) per year on the National Rail system is ~25, rail journeys are clearly very highly concentrated in a small portion of the population.

 

[The Planner]

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

They said "regularly". If you wanted to generally mess about with statistics, the ORR page shows that 2019/20 Q3 461,207,500 journeys were made, so 12 weeks and 38,500,000 per week . If you assumed, rightly or wrongly, that people still working 5 days a week made 10 journeys a week, that is 3.85 million people. Google says GB population is 68 million, so 5.6% of people.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Given that most journeys by rail are within London and the South East I’m not sure that this is relevant to open access over longer distances on main lines. (Yes, I know about Heathrow Express.)

It’s probably fair to say that Open Access has stimulated trips, largely to/from London in Hull, Hartlepool, Halifax and even Morpeth, etc.. However these are likely to be on the occasional trip rather than regular commuting.

 

[ocean_life]

Genius, Not!

So anyone who wants a connecting ticket using both GBR and an OA operator would have to buy two tickets. How user friendly!

Talk about reverting to the (worst aspects) of the 19th century railway.

They wouldn't need to buy 2 tickets.

In Italy if you buy a ticket for a journey that involves an OA operator and Trenitalia then you will be given 2 tickets. One for the OA service (e.g Italo) and one for the Trenitalia service.

 

[357]

They wouldn't need to buy 2 tickets.

In Italy if you buy a ticket for a journey that involves an OA operator and Trenitalia then you will be given 2 tickets. One for the OA service (e.g Italo) and one for the Trenitalia service.

So you've bought two tickets then.

 

[A S Leib]

So you've bought two tickets then.

How are passenger rights in the case of disruption affected due to having two tickets rather than one?

 

[357]

How are passenger rights in the case of disruption affected due to having two tickets rather than one?

In the UK the train/s must stop at the station where the split is made, and it will class as a through journey.

I have no idea about Italy - what I do know however is that it is absolutely ridiculous to complicate journeys, complicate ticketing even further and potentially reduce passenger rights, just because some members of an internet forum don't like the colour of some trains on the network.

 

[ocean_life]

So you've bought two tickets then.

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

 

[Zomboid]

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

Similar to connecting flights in my experience, you get two or more boarding passes if your journey is in sections.

 

[357]

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

If they aren't treated as a through journey then they will.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The ORR board have met in June and the announcement on the WCML applications is expected shortly, may even be this week.

The ECML related applications were due to be discussed at the July ORR Board, unless they managed to sneak any into June.

Following the pattern of the June ORR Board meeting on 24 June and the subsequent announcement on 3 July of the rejection of the WCML applications I guess the July ORR Board meeting to decide the ECML related applications will be around 22 July and the announcement of the decisions around 31 July.

It will be interesting to see what the ORR decide on the ECML related applications. Whereas the WCML applications from WSMR, Lumo and Virgin were all for completely new services, the five ECML related open access applications from Grand Central, Hull Trains (two applications) and Lumo (two applications) are for fairly small increments to existing open access services.

 

[NCT]

It’s the age old argument, should the state subsidise the railways or should the users of the railways pay for them.

The general population doesn’t really benefit much from the railway. Most people do not use trains. Only a very small minority of people regularly use trains.

However my argument isn’t that the state shouldn’t subsidise the railways. My point is that I don’t think the state should be subsidising a highly profitable private company to compete directly on price against the state-subsidised operator. It’s just pseudo free-market nonsense that costs the taxpayer more money.

You've been repeatedly called out, so stop the hate.

Best-in-class countries like Switzerland and Netherlands have higher state spending in railway infrastructure than in the UK. State pay for infrastructure passengers pay for operation is the normal funding model across Europe so I don't see how this is controversial. When fare income almost covers the whole Network Grant the passenger is overpaying. The state should not be a profiting extraction entity, so the state should have proactively returned the vast franchise premia to the passengers through better service levels and closer to operationally break-even fares. Had the DfT been empowered to do this by the Treasury it would have done so without leaking money to private shareholders. That it took the private sector stepping in is just a reflection of government failure.

If the track access regime needs to be reset to be fairer then that just needs to be a technocratic exercise. Make it boring. The political grandstanding is making the government look amateur.

Just because some bloke said something 20 years ago doesn't make what he said right.

It isn’t fair to say Lumo is almost entirely revenue abstractive. That is just your assertion because you don’t like OA. It has no basis in fact - I have dealt with that on another thread - and political pressure was not applied to grant it rights (not a licence).

You are absolutely correct that if OA was charged the full cost of its paths, they would fold. But that’s not the current system - everyone pays only marginal costs plus markups where the market can afford. It was done that way to encourage model shift to rail.

Your mention of CG and his assertion that GC were being charged less than GNER is useful because the Judge in the subsequent High Court Case found otherwise. GC and GNER were being charged on exactly the same basis.

The Fixed Track Access Charge was found to be an “artificial construct”, designed to flow residual funding monies (after Grant and Charges) from the DfT to NR. It was a form of laundering Grant, not a proper cost charge and TOCs were protected from the annual variations in FTAC, which could be huge either way.

In that Court Case it was stated that LRIC charging was preferred by the ORR but NR was then in no position to allocate its costs correctly. That position has now changed and in PR18 NR did a lot of work in allocating LRIC to Operator and Service Group. If the “market can bear” test is removed from the Regs by the forthcoming legislation, then LRIC charging (probably on a per train mile basis) could well be introduced in 2029.

In the meantime Lumo will shortly be paying more per train mile in ICC than LNER will be “paying” in FTAC! That shows how bonkers the system has become and how it badly needs revising so everyone is charged (or in the case of GBR allocated costs) on the same transparent basis.

Mode shift from road to rail has been a long-standing government policy regardless of colour, so I don't think a charging regime reflecting that is exactly controversial.

I agree that FTAC is really a pass-through. It's a completely meaningless term in a premium franchise. The infrastructure costs a franchised TOC perceives in variating its service level is the VTAC, which as the Judge in the High Court Case said is exactly the same for GC and GNER (and its successors).

If say the state continued to pay for the long-run fixed cost of infrastructure through the Network Grant and LRIC went into VTAC, do we have a sense of by what percentage VTAC would have to rise from the current levels?

I've just skimmed the ORR page on the PR18 charging framework. Would Grand Central running additional services (for which it has applied for access) qualify as 'significant variations to their services' to then be subject to the ICC? York station was 10 million pre Covid and I suspect the 2024/25 figure will top 10m too.