Badger said:
In my mind what OA operators are better suited for, rather than long distance routes that get in the way of other companies, is disused branch lines (that are still open for whatever reason). For example (and sorry it's a local example as I can't think of any others right now), the Wolverhampton to Walsall line which was withdrawn by London Midland but is still open as a diversion route. I'm sure there are better examples.
Surely open-access can only work where there is profit to be had? There's probably a reason why little-used branch lines are little-used!
I've always found the idea of competition for passengers on the railway to be silly, especially now more and more routes are starting to reach line capacity. As we have seen, it is operationally much simpler if every service on a route is provided by one company. In most London terminals, we have only one or two operators running everything, with suburban and long-distance being run seperately. Competition does exist in some places (London-Birmingham via the WCML or Chiltern, for example), but most other places have a complete monopoly.
This is in contrast to freight, which has done very well from privatisation and competition. I suppose it comes down to the fact that rail travel for passengers has social benefits as well as economic ones, whereas freight will always largely be driven by money. As far as I know, there are no subsidies for freight, and loss-making flows just don't exist anymore.
In the meantime, I wouldn't be suprised if open-access operations like Grand Central and Hull Trains are merged into the East Coast franchise. They are evidently a commerically viable operation, so the government will want to grab a slice or two!