• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
UK Rail being responsible for the services then keepinng the existing system
Not sure about that name though considering they wouldn't run in Northern Ireland.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,221
I'd like to see them introduce DOO on CrossCountry, East Coast, First Great Western and Virgin Trains! :roll: There would be havoc!
 

jha4ceb

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2011
Messages
81
I note that the report comes out against further expansion of Open Access Operators.
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
I note that the report comes out against further expansion of Open Access Operators.

Operators that operate outside of the subsidised franchise system? Surely these ought to be encouraged!
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
They dont really, while not directly subsidised they recieve a proportional share of revenue from passengers on a route according to capacity provided (and some assumptions about which service a passenger would choose for speed/connections). The revenue they take comes out of the pockets of the franchise operating the same route, which means they may not make a profit on that route, which means they need subsidy.
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
They dont really, while not directly subsidised they recieve a proportional share of revenue from passengers on a route according to capacity provided (and some assumptions about which service a passenger would choose for speed/connections). The revenue they take comes out of the pockets of the franchise operating the same route, which means they may not make a profit on that route, which means they need subsidy.

In essence, OAO on a route pushes up the subsidy of the franchised operator, as the OAO takes a cut of the ORCATS pot? The franchised operator should then offer a better service - wasn't competition supposed to drive down fares and create better services as each company played off each other? Seems to be a reversal on this if the report actually discourages OAO.

The more the way the franchise and operating system becomes apparent to me, the more my head hurts at how bloody awful it is. It's a real mongrel of the worst parts of state and privately run industries.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
I note that the report comes out against further expansion of Open Access Operators.

Open access operators are only charged marginal track access costs compared to franchised service operators who are charged full track access charges. This means that open access operators are effectively being subsidised by passengers on franchised services which are paying full track access charges to support the maintenance and operation of the network.

The Government/DfT view doesn't surprise me at all. This has always been perfectly obvious to anyone following all the correspondence about existing, and new, OA services - as seen on the ORR's website.

Unless OA operators start thinking about alternatives to paralleling existing routes (eg to London) they'll always have one hand tied behind their backs.
 

2Dogbox

Member
Joined
22 Mar 2011
Messages
174
Location
Lincoln
I have just read the government paper on the DFT website. If anyone wants to read 78 pages of spin and waffle that says nothing of any substance then I recommend it. Someone has taken the McNaulty report and just added bits and changed the wording slightly.

The old spectre of DOO appears in section 4.77 but again, nothing substantial is said. It mentions London commuter routes and London Undergrond as an example of where this is in place now. However, reading section 4.56 that states "the railway should be able to have locally appropriate solutions", then in my opinion DOO is not 'locally appropriate' for branch lines and local services.

Not a lot of substance in the whole thing from a meddling and incompetent government department. ...
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
The Government/DfT view doesn't surprise me at all. This has always been perfectly obvious to anyone following all the correspondence about existing, and new, OA services - as seen on the ORR's website.

Unless OA operators start thinking about alternatives to paralleling existing routes (eg to London) they'll always have one hand tied behind their backs.


Now OAO's not being charged full track access charges does surprise me. I genuinely never knew that. Something to entice Open Access to try, and now a rope with which to hang them with. Open Access really seems to be anything but.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
I have just read the government paper on the DFT website. If anyone wants to read 78 pages of spin and waffle that says nothing of any substance then I recommend it. Someone has taken the McNaulty report and just added bits and changed the wording slightly.

Even if there was substance to the report there are no guarantees many of the recommendations will be implemented. Unless the Government guarantees TOCs' loss of income from strikes then extending DOO and closing ticket offices are unlikely to happen as the TOCs won't accept the loss of revenue, or have the balls to force these things through.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
I have just read the government paper on the DFT website.

Christ, doesn't your head hurt?

I read the ICWC Invitation to Tender a while back and needed smelling salts.

In other news, nobody has yet properly commented on ROSCOs and what a colossal waste of money they are...!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Nearly fell out of my chair when she suggested that there has never been a better time for working in the railway industry than now.

yes - not all of us work for the wonderful TOCs with whom we must now have a closer relationship. (blessings and peace be upon them)

(have we not gone down this route before - i cant quite remember but i am sure bad things happend)
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
In other news, nobody has yet properly commented on ROSCOs and what a colossal waste of money they are...!

Shhh. You can't say that.

There's something fundamentally wrong about paying hundreds of thousands a year for something that was bought and paid for in full 20 years ago by the State, for use (via the proxy of a ToC) by the State, financed partly by (via the proxy of the ToC's subsidy) the State.

It makes a smidge more sense when the ROSCO puts up the cash for building new stock, but to charge such prices for the use of BR stock bought at a knock down price at privatisation surely cannot be overlooked?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
In other news, nobody has yet properly commented on ROSCOs and what a colossal waste of money they are...!

Well, nobody except the Competion Commission, under the last Government's direction, and they reported that the Roscos were definitely not the rip off people keep going on about.
 

oversteer

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2011
Messages
725
I have just read the government paper on the DFT website. If anyone wants to read 78 pages of spin and waffle that says nothing of any substance then I recommend it. Someone has taken the McNaulty report and just added bits and changed the wording slightly.

I think the bit that stood out most was

"While we reject the idea of using demand management to price
people off the railways, we need to look seriously at the possibility
of rewarding passengers who do not travel on the most crowded
trains, and asking those passengers who drive the need for capacity
enhancements by travelling at the busiest times to pay more over
time for their journey by comparison."
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
I think the bit that stood out most was

"While we reject the idea of using demand management to price
people off the railways, we need to look seriously at the possibility
of rewarding passengers who do not travel on the most crowded
trains, and asking those passengers who drive the need for capacity enhancements by travelling at the busiest times to pay more over time for their journey by comparison."

Precisely. And I've put the most significant point in red.

Anytime tickets are now massively expensive on most routes, especially up and down the West Coast and East Coast Mainlines. How can we realistically ask people to pay a surplus on top of the already high prices?
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
I think the bit that stood out most was

"While we reject the idea of using demand management to price
people off the railways, we need to look seriously at the possibility
of rewarding passengers who do not travel on the most crowded
trains, and asking those passengers who drive the need for capacity
enhancements by travelling at the busiest times to pay more over
time for their journey by comparison."

That's the commuters bolloxed then.

Busy trains 7-9am and 4-7pm. Anyone in Government noticed the correlation between those hours and the hours people tend to work? Or do they think that people just choose to travel at those times for fun? There's enough complaints about season ticket pricing (despite the discount over time) and the like as it is.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Anytime tickets are now massively expensive on most routes, especially up and down the West Coast and East Coast Mainlines. How can we realistically ask people to pay a surplus on top of the already high prices?

People using Anytime tickets are not really those who drive the peak capacity requirement up though. I think the problem they are really getting at is that of the season ticket holders in the South East, those who actually pay the least of all for their travel, because their 'regulated commuter fares', have been kept too low in comparison to the Anytime tickets...
 

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,221
People using Anytime tickets are not really those who drive the peak capacity requirement up though. I think the problem they are really getting at is that of the season ticket holders in the South East, those who actually pay the least of all for their travel, because their 'regulated commuter fares', have been kept too low in comparison to the Anytime tickets...

I agree. "Peak" Virgin Trains and East Coast services are not exactly packed to the rafters!
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
The cynic in me is thinking that the DfT won't ignore the correlation between Season tickets and peak hours.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
basically, all the shortcomings of the Railways are nothing at all to do with the Government, even though the Government controls everything, is that bascially what it comes down to.

Regarding the commuter issue, really I think the only possible long-term solution is to readdress the whole system of everyone working the same hours in the same place. Is there really any need, given modern Communications and so on, for businesses to all be concentrated in one place, or to need to all work the same hours? It may have been necessary in Dickensian times for staff to be in the same building, and businesses in the same line of business needed to be with easy reach, but surely not now. I think it all comes back to the question of whether it's desirable (as mentioned in the Heathrow thread) for London to keep expanding perpetually.
 

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,221
Try Friday evening peak services out of Euston or Kings Cross.

I have (everything except the London to Glasgow route). They're not particularly busy compared to the 19:00, 19:03, 19:07, 19:10, 19:20 and even the 19:23 - all of which are packed with Off-Peak ticket holders.

Most of the morning "Peak" trains in particular are rarely at more than 50% capacity. Compare that to the first "Off-Peak" trains to London (for example, the 09:35 from Chester to London)!

Why should the "Anytime" ticket holders pay even more, when it's the "Off-Peak" ticket holders who are "hogging" all of the capacity, and are "creating" the need for 11-car Pendolino's? (Even though the problem could be significantly alleviated if Virgin just made their Off-Peak restrictions more reasonable...)

I think the quote mentioned earlier is more applicable to customers holding Season Tickets between Reading and London, Milton Keynes and London, Stevenage and London, along the Thameslink route, etc... They create far greater needs for capacity enhancements than Anytime ticket holders travelling from Manchester to London!
 
Last edited:

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
The cynic in me is thinking that the DfT won't ignore the correlation between Season tickets and peak hours.
In at least some cases, cheaper advance fares are available even in the peak and this must contribute at least in part to overcrowding. That said with advance fares the people will be restricted to one train so if season tickets/anytime fares were made more expensive and people encouraged to book in advance more than this would allow overcrowding to be reduced. This wouldn't be my preferred option though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top