Future routes for Open Access operators

[Trainfan344]

Following from the success of Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains, I was wondering what routes could be viable for open access operators.

My suggestion would be Norwich to Leeds, my calling points would be Norwich Thetford, Peterborough, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Derby, Chesterfield and Leeds.

The major issue is paths through Ely North but that area could probably use demolishing and rebuilding.

Train would also use Syston North Curve and the "Back Road" through Barrow Hill to avoid Sheffield.

This would help prevent claims of Revenue extraction while providing lots of direct trains between places that currently require a change.

 

[ac6000cw]

See the long-gone Wrexham and Shropshire OA operation to find out what happens when you can't call at major traffic generators along the route (like Birmingham in that case)...at least that was a reasonably direct route between Shropshire and London, in contrast to Norwich to Leeds via Derby (!)

 

[zwk500]

Has any OAO survived that did not call at London

The major issue is paths through Ely North but that area could probably use demolishing and rebuilding.

This is not so simple as all moves currently available are booked to be used. My personal solution to Ely north is to build a new line cutting the corner for March-Norwich, with a new curve towards King's Lynn, and abandon the West Curve, but it'll never have a business case.

Train would also use Syston North Curve and the "Back Road" through Barrow Hill to avoid Sheffield.

So you avoid Leicester for the sake of 10 minutes, and Sheffield for the sake of a less convenient path? Which way were you planning to get to Leeds, via Normanton?

This would help prevent claims of Revenue extraction while providing lots of direct trains between places that currently require a change.

How often would this service plan to run, and how many paths could you actually get for it to run?

 

[ac6000cw]

Has any OAO survived that did not call at London

I can't think of any. Have there been any serious proposals that didn't include London?

AFAIK London is by far the biggest market for long-distance traffic, and the main routes to it are also fast routes which helps rolling stock and crew productivity - keeping the costs down. I'm sure it's not accidental that the existing OA operations all run to London on the ECML (and that there have been serious OA proposals targeting the WCML and GWML).

 

[skyhigh]

Following from the success of Lumo

Lumo - links Edinburgh to London, where there is large passenger flows and lots of competition in terms of rail, flights and road services. Adds something new that LNER don't cater for (in the form of low cost) and has plenty of passengers to pick up from other modes.

Grand Central

Links London to the North, new services that don't exist and also gives other options from larger stations such as York and Doncaster where there's plenty of passenger traffic.

and Hull Trains

Again, as GC links London to Yorkshire, adds new links and offers something additional to the network - with plenty of passengers to pick up from coach services etc.

Which brings us to your suggestion of:

Norwich to Leeds, my calling points would be Norwich Thetford, Peterborough, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Derby, Chesterfield and Leeds.

Which misses the biggest traffic centre of London. It would also be a slower way round for Leeds-Peterborough passengers than existing services, while shadowing existing Derby-Chesterfield-Leeds services and missing the biggest stop on that section with regard to passenger flows. In addition, is the Norwich-Leeds market really that big, and is there room for growth? Would passengers be able to travel Leeds-Norwich faster than existing services, or would open access be able to do it with cheaper fares? I doubt it to be honest.

The major issue is paths through Ely North but that area could probably use demolishing and rebuilding.

If the area is currently coping with the traffic, who's going to pay for the upgrade?

 

[Iskra]

I would do a portion working train formed of two bi-mode Azuma's:

(Swansea-Neath-Port Talbot Parkway-Bridgend-Cardiff Central-Newport-Cheltenham Spa)
(Plymouth-Newton Abbott-Exeter-Taunton-Bristol TM-Bristol Parkway-Cheltenham Spa)
The core: Birmingham NS-Crewe-Wigan-Warrington-Preston-Lancaster-Oxenholme-Carlisle-Edinburgh-
(Principle Stations to Aberdeen)
(Principle Stations to Inverness)

Run every 2 hours. It would link South Wales to the WCML, Edinburgh and Scotland. Additionally it would link the South West to the WCML stations and provide a faster journey time to Scottish stations, while also linking Inverness. WCML stations would also gain more direct train options to Scotland, South Wales and the South West. The main challenge would be passing the not primarily abstractive test. Running as one train through the core should make pathing easier.

 

[zwk500]

I would do a portion working train formed of two bi-mode Azuma's:

(Swansea-Neath-Port Talbot Parkway-Bridgend-Cardiff Central-Newport-Cheltenham Spa)
(Plymouth-Newton Abbott-Exeter-Taunton-Bristol TM-Bristol Parkway-Cheltenham Spa)
The core: Birmingham NS-Crewe-Wigan-Warrington-Preston-Lancaster-Oxenholme-Carlisle-Edinburgh-
(Principle Stations to Aberdeen)
(Principle Stations to Inverness)

Run every 2 hours. It would link South Wales to the WCML, Edinburgh and Scotland. Additionally it would link the South West to the WCML stations and provide a faster journey time to Scottish stations, while also linking Inverness. WCML stations would also gain more direct train options to Scotland, South Wales and the South West. The main challenge would be passing the not primarily abstractive test. Running as one train through the core should make pathing easier.

The crew requirement for this is going to be horrendous on an OAO. Not sure about stock utilisation, would have to look into it.

My personal place to look for an OAO proposal would be London-Exeter via Salisbury. But this would involve SWR handing their paths over to the new OAO rather than any additional trains being put on.

 

[cle]

I think some South West-facing services in the Summer might be interesting. You have Penzance, Newquay and Paignton as 'branches' so a combination of those (possibly some splitting) and then if not London (Waterloo even?) - then Manchester might be worthwhile, or Leeds. Neither have Cornwall services right now. Possibly too seasonal though.

I liked Wrexham etc- as an attempt, but they would need some 'abstraction' (I see it as market creation/proliferation) - i.e. to serve larger places. Birmingham already has competition - and will have more - so that's fair game. Wolverhampton is trickier.
Shrewsbury exists only due to a Virgin reaction to WRMS, so it seems fair game to go after. But thence, to Chester? Aber? Holyhead? There is maybe something there, with splitting possibly - but I don't know if the market adds up.

 

[tbtc]

The big advantage GC/HT had was that there was an existing demand from York/ Doncaster etc to London, so they’d get a share of that “pot” of sweet sweet ORCATS revenue one way it the other

a route that sieges half it’s time on the busy ECML should be shorter to tattoo into those passengers, and anyone using the trains from Hartlepool/ Howden/ Halifax was a bonus (London to Donny/ York is the meaty pie, Pontefract etc were the gravy - I exaggerate slightly but there’s a serious point, if you know that there’s automatically going to be some money coming in -from what you’ve taken from GNER etc) then you have a fairly reliable base to build upon, even if it takes a while for some of your “unique” stations to develop much demand for London services

running something “new” is a lot riskier since you’d effectively be building the whole market from scratch, especially as (even with the best MML paths available to you) it’ll be faster for passengers to change from EMR to LNER at Peterborough/ Grantham

It’s be very hard to make any Open Access outside London remotely profitable (in the way that it’s very hard to make any Railway genuine profitable without a slice of London revenue (sure, you can fiddle about with NR payments etc to try to fudge the figures, but I’m taking the true cost) - i guess if I had to start one I’d look to copy a busy existing route but with a twist at the far end, e.g. maybe piggyback onto a well loaded XC route but just different enough to pass the Abstraction tests, say Walsall to Bath, which would really be about the Birmingham to Bristol market but maybe stopping at a couple of places that lack long distance links, University, Bromsgrove, that kind of thing - otherwise I don’t think you’d stand much of a chance (unless you involved London somehow)

Has any OAO survived that did not call at London

The pedantic answer would be to point out that there Jacobite (steam locomotives over Glenfinnan viaduct) is Open Access, but that’s a whole different “kettle” of fish so I hesitate to mention it alongside GC/ HT - technically correct to though

Just be careful with what really is open access, i remember when I used to post more attention to Welsh threads some posters used to describe the “WAG Express” as Open Access on the grounds that it was above and beyond the franchise commitments to certain minimum service numbers etc

would the proposed Arriva Trains Wales/ Wales & Borders service of 158s from the Cambrian to Marylebone have been a Open Access? Certainly it was pushed as a commercial venture that Arriva didn’t have to do, and were only considering it to fight back against WSMR, but I wonder whether some people use the term Open Access rather flexibly in the way that I’ve heard some lines with a few trains a day described as a “Parliamentary” service. Definitions matter

 

[Iskra]

The big advantage GC/HT had was that there was an existing demand from York/ Doncaster etc to London, so they’d get a share of that “pot” of sweet sweet ORCATS revenue one way it the other

a route that sieges half it’s time on the busy ECML should be shorter to tattoo into those passengers, and anyone using the trains from Hartlepool/ Howden/ Halifax was a bonus (London to Donny/ York is the meaty pie, Pontefract etc were the gravy - I exaggerate slightly but there’s a serious point, if you know that there’s automatically going to be some money coming in -from what you’ve taken from GNER etc) then you have a fairly reliable base to build upon, even if it takes a while for some of your “unique” stations to develop much demand for London services

running something “new” is a lot riskier since you’d effectively be building the whole market from scratch, especially as (even with the best MML paths available to you) it’ll be faster for passengers to change from EMR to LNER at Peterborough/ Grantham

It’s be very hard to make any Open Access outside London remotely profitable (in the way that it’s very hard to make any Railway genuine profitable without a slice of London revenue (sure, you can fiddle about with NR payments etc to try to fudge the figures, but I’m taking the true cost) - i guess if I had to start one I’d look to copy a busy existing route but with a twist at the far end, e.g. maybe piggyback onto a well loaded XC route but just different enough to pass the Abstraction tests, say Walsall to Bath, which would really be about the Birmingham to Bristol market but maybe stopping at a couple of places that lack long distance links, University, Bromsgrove, that kind of thing - otherwise I don’t think you’d stand much of a chance (unless you involved London somehow)



The pedantic answer would be to point out that there Jacobite (steam locomotives over Glenfinnan viaduct) is Open Access, but that’s a whole different “kettle” of fish so I hesitate to mention it alongside GC/ HT - technically correct to though

Just be careful with what really is open access, i remember when I used to post more attention to Welsh threads some posters used to describe the “WAG Express” as Open Access on the grounds that it was above and beyond the franchise commitments to certain minimum service numbers etc

would the proposed Arriva Trains Wales/ Wales & Borders service of 158s from the Cambrian to Marylebone have been a Open Access? Certainly it was pushed as a commercial venture that Arriva didn’t have to do, and were only considering it to fight back against WSMR, but I wonder whether some people use the term Open Access rather flexibly in the way that I’ve heard some lines with a few trains a day described as a “Parliamentary” service. Definitions matter

They NYMR Grosmont to Whitby is open access, and it is very successful. It is probably a better example than the Jacobite as it does serve to transport passengers to Whitby as a destination whereas the Jacobite is more about the journey than the destination (of course I am generalising here).

 

[zwk500]

The jacobite and NYMR services, alongside all other Charter TOCS, are spot-bid rather than Open Access. They just happen to bid for WTT paths in these examples.

Importantly, these paths are not in the public timetable and ordinary tickets are not valid on them. There's a whole load of other regulatory differences as well, but they are not Open Access Operators in the sense that Grand Central and Hull Trains are.

 

[mike57]

Hull Trains

If you take the case of Hull Trains, which we use, they provide conectivity to London from stations which at best had one train a day each way direct. As a result when travelling south they are already quite well loaded by the time they reach Doncaster.

The other surviving OAs with the exception of the NYMR to Whitby and the Jacobite all end up in London. The biggest demand will always be London, and I think except in very limited cases other routes will not have the flows to justify an OA operator.

The current Leeds - Norwich service is one change at Peterborough, journey time is around 3h 30m +-, and is roughly hourly, will the proposed route match or better this? Most of the other calling points can reach Norwich with one change at Peterborough. Having changed at Peterborough many times over the years it isn't on my personal list of 'avoid if possible' changes. Even if the OA operator could get 50% of the flow would this be enough to make it worthwhile?

If you were looking at possible open access routes then 'no direct service to London' and a decent population centre(s) at the country end, have to be the first tick boxes if an operator is going to be succesfull unless they are undercutting the current operator (Lumo)

 

[PTR 444]

My personal place to look for an OAO proposal would be London-Exeter via Salisbury. But this would involve SWR handing their paths over to the new OAO rather than any additional trains being put on.

A nice idea if it could compete with GWR on their London - Exeter route, but would be impossible without a complete upgrade and dualling of the WofE Line. Who is going to pay for it?

 

[Trainfan344]

People are missing a the point.

This is about direct services between population centers. Peterborough is a horrid place to change trains. Years ago we had direct trains from around the country to East Anglia, now most places require a change.

This connects places like Oakham and Melton Mowbray to Derby and Leeds directly.

By removing a connection at Peterborough, Leeds to Great Yarmouth, something popular in the summer is doable without having to take large suitcases or duffle bags up and over the footbridges at Peterborough.

In peak summer season a service could even extend to Great Yarmouth, imagine holidaymakers traveling by train not needing to take the children and luggage of the train and onto another.

Strange idea I know!

 

[Iskra]

If you take the case of Hull Trains, which we use, they provide conectivity to London from stations which at best had one train a day each way direct. As a result when travelling south they are already quite well loaded by the time they reach Doncaster.

The other surviving OAs with the exception of the NYMR to Whitby and the Jacobite all end up in London. The biggest demand will always be London, and I think except in very limited cases other routes will not have the flows to justify an OA operator.

The current Leeds - Norwich service is one change at Peterborough, journey time is around 3h 30m +-, and is roughly hourly, will the proposed route match or better this? Most of the other calling points can reach Norwich with one change at Peterborough. Having changed at Peterborough many times over the years it isn't on my personal list of 'avoid if possible' changes. Even if the OA operator could get 50% of the flow would this be enough to make it worthwhile?

If you were looking at possible open access routes then 'no direct service to London' and a decent population centre(s) at the country end, have to be the first tick boxes if an operator is going to be succesfull unless they are undercutting the current operator (Lumo)

I'm not sure this is the case. Remember, that most of the population of the UK does not live in London. There are some pretty hefty conurbation corridors (Liverpool to Hull for example), and if they could be linked to other conurbation areas, passing through another one, it could well work. To me the London centric nature of current Open Access operators, is not because that is the only centre of demand, but due to the flawed nature of the way Open Access competition works on the UK railway and namely 'the not primarily abstractive test.' Considering that the UK has only a small number of mainlines to get anywhere fast, an Open Access operator is always going to be funnelled onto one of those quite quickly and then if you want to call anywhere you are going to end up abstracting revenue (quite naturally, even if it isn't intended) from a TOC. The only way to defeat this test is to start a service from somewhere relatively obscure and link it to somewhere massive, without calling anywhere much inbetween.

It is typical of the lofty idealism of UK rail privatisation combined with simultaneously terrible execution of the idea to; in one sense encourage Open Access operators in theory, but to not allow them to truly compete on anything like a like-for-like basis with TOC's. I think it is therefore very difficult to establish what demand is truly out there with an Open Access system, that is actually far from Open Access.

 

[Trainbike46]

People are missing a the point.

This is about direct services between population centers. Peterborough is a horrid place to change trains. Years ago we had direct trains from around the country to East Anglia, now most places require a change.

There's lots of direct connections that I would like to see on our railway network, I'm sure each of us has some of those; that doesn't mean that they are suitable for operation by Open Access Operators. When you opened this thread you were specifically talking about OAOs, not new direct services by the existing TOCs

This connects places like Oakham and Melton Mowbray to Derby and Leeds directly.

By removing a connection at Peterborough, Leeds to Great Yarmouth, something popular in the summer is doable without having to take large suitcases or duffle bags up and over the footbridges at Peterborough.

Have you ever been to Great Yarmouth? I doubt it's a massive attraction for people in Leeds

In peak summer season a service could even extend to Great Yarmouth, imagine holidaymakers traveling by train not needing to take the children and luggage of the train and onto another.

I suspect more can be achieved by improving connections, tbh

 

[Trainfan344]

Believe me, having seen and spoken to holidt makers. A lot of people from places like Leeds and Derby come down to Great Yarmouth for holidays at the holiday camps in the summer.

Connections can be improved, but ultimately the thing people want the most is a train that will take them direct to a destination. Ideally with on board refreshments and a LNER style at your seat service which provides the convenience of a trolley service without the hassle of having to get a trolley along the train.

 

[Trainbike46]

Believe me, having seen and spoken to holidt makers. A lot of people from places like Leeds and Derby come down to Great Yarmouth for holidays at the holiday camps in the summer.

Connections can be improved, but ultimately the thing people want the most is a train that will take them direct to a destination. Ideally with on board refreshments and a LNER style at your seat service which provides the convenience of a trolley service without the hassle of having to get a trolley along the train.

Even if you do believe the traffic is sufficient to run direct leeds-Great Yarmouth trains, that doesn't in itself make them suitable for operation by an OAO. For that, it would also have to be profitable and be able to pass the "not primarily abstractive" test, and I would be highly surprised if your proposed leeds-great yarmouth service could do either, let alone both

Another issue to consider with this is how it would be pathed through Norwich!

 

[Trainfan344]

Ely North is the major issue, plenty of paths available at Norwich.

 

[TheBigD]

The summer Saturday though trains from Liverpool/Birmingham were cut back to Norwich around 2004. As someone who used to work them, the loadings were tailing off for years before their withdrawal. The market changed, with tourism to the Broads/North Norfolk caost increasing but Great Yarmouth decreasing.

 

[zwk500]

This is about direct services between population centers. Peterborough is a horrid place to change trains. Years ago we had direct trains from around the country to East Anglia, now most places require a change.

This connects places like Oakham and Melton Mowbray to Derby and Leeds directly.

These are not significant population centres.

By removing a connection at Peterborough, Leeds to Great Yarmouth, something popular in the summer is doable without having to take large suitcases or duffle bags up and over the footbridges at Peterborough.
In peak summer season a service could even extend to Great Yarmouth, imagine holidaymakers traveling by train not needing to take the children and luggage of the train and onto another.
Strange idea I know!

Believe me, having seen and spoken to holidt makers. A lot of people from places like Leeds and Derby come down to Great Yarmouth for holidays at the holiday camps in the summer. Connections can be improved, but ultimately the thing people want the most is a train that will take them direct to a destination.

What most holiday makers to East Anglia want in my experience is a lack of congestion on the motorway and A14.

I'm not sure this is the case. Remember, that most of the population of the UK does not live in London.

10% of the UK's population live in London. It is 7-10 times larger than the next largest population centre in the country (depending on exactly where you draw boundaries). Any Origin/Destination pair that does not involve London is doomed to be smaller than those same towns' journey pair with London.

There are some pretty hefty conurbation corridors (Liverpool to Hull for example), and if they could be linked to other conurbation areas, passing through another one, it could well work.

Doesn't TPE already do this, and demonstrate the profitability is not easily realisable?

It is typical of the lofty idealism of UK rail privatisation combined with simultaneously terrible execution of the idea to; in one sense encourage Open Access operators in theory, but to not allow them to truly compete on anything like a like-for-like basis with TOC's. I think it is therefore very difficult to establish what demand is truly out there with an Open Access system, that is actually far from Open Access.

There's a lot of truth in this.

 

[CBlue]

Just need the following to be suggested now to complete my RailUK Forums bingo card:


- A spurious notion of "InterCity"

- Sleeper services

-Loco hauled stock

Once a day "out and back" services went the way of the dodo when motoring became cheaper.

Look at the prices the rail charter firms charge for a similar journey and that should give you an idea of how expensive the fares would need to be! Can't see many paying that and sacrificing the flexibility of their personal transport.

 

[Iskra]

10% of the UK's population live in London. It is 7-10 times larger than the next largest population centre in the country (depending on exactly where you draw boundaries). Any Origin/Destination pair that does not involve London is doomed to be smaller than those same towns' journey pair with London.

Doesn't TPE already do this, and demonstrate the profitability is not easily realisable?

There's a lot of truth in this.

90% of the UK doesn't live in London... and not necessarily and as I said, not if we are talking about linking multiple conurbations (groups of cities), therefore linking multiples of multiple city groups, which surely has great passenger potential if done well.

TPE and XC both do this, demonstrating a market exists. Now, if it could be done more cleverly, comfortably, quickly and reliably... hence my example upthread that extends on XC, beats it for speed, capacity, comfort and extends beyond TPE's remit and again is faster by skipping Manchester and has greater capacity on the core.

Just need the following to be suggested now to complete my RailUK Forums bingo card:


- A spurious notion of "InterCity"

- Sleeper services

-Loco hauled stock

We are in the speculative section, so it is entirely reasonable.

You'd also need a dining car, new-build panoramic seating coaches, comfortable seats, HST's and 442's

 

[The Prisoner]

South Coast/South West to Midlands then WCML to Scotland.

London to Manchester/Birmingham/North Wales/Liverpool/Glasgow.

Maybe I need a different font for irony......

 

[zwk500]

90% of the UK doesn't live in London... and not necessarily and as I said, not if we are talking about linking multiple conurbations (groups of cities), therefore linking multiples of multiple city groups, which surely has great passenger potential if done well.

But the remaining 90% is scattered across the land, not neatly collected in an opposing conurbation. If we consider the main trans-pennine Corridor of Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Huddersfield-Bradford-Leeds-Wakefield-Hull then combined you get the following (city proper/metro areas, rounded.) figures from Wikipedia.
Liverpool: 500k/2.5m, Warrington: 165k/210k, Manchester: 550k/2.9m, Huddersfield: 162k/N/A, Bradford: 350k/540k, Leeds 516k/812k, Wakefield: 100k/350k, Hull: 260k/570k

So, combined you have: 2.6m/7.9m. London is 9.7m/14m. You will also notice that not all of the Transpennine cities can be linked with a single service that then goes onto somewhere else. Even if you could, the total conurbation is between 1/4 and 1/2 London's size. The population of the island of Great Britain is nearly 61m, so London has 23% of the Island's population, and the Transpennine conurbation has 13%.

If you are a private business, you need to serve the largest possible market. On GB, if your market involves people, you need to include London.

TPE and XC both do this, demonstrating a market exists. Now, if it could be done more cleverly, comfortably, quickly and reliably...

They also demonstrate the market is not big enough to self-fund, because both of those are subsidised heavily.

 

[Iskra]

But the remaining 90% is scattered across the land, not neatly collected in an opposing conurbation. If we consider the main trans-pennine Corridor of Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Huddersfield-Bradford-Leeds-Wakefield-Hull then combined you get the following (city proper/metro areas, rounded.) figures from Wikipedia.
Liverpool: 500k/2.5m, Warrington: 165k/210k, Manchester: 550k/2.9m, Huddersfield: 162k/N/A, Bradford: 350k/540k, Leeds 516k/812k, Wakefield: 100k/350k, Hull: 260k/570k

So, combined you have: 2.6m/7.9m. London is 9.7m/14m. You will also notice that not all of the Transpennine cities can be linked with a single service that then goes onto somewhere else. Even if you could, the total conurbation is between 1/4 and 1/2 London's size. The population of the island of Great Britain is nearly 61m, so London has 23% of the Island's population, and the Transpennine conurbation has 13%.

If you are a private business, you need to serve the largest possible market. On GB, if your market involves people, you need to include London.

They also demonstrate the market is not big enough to self-fund, because both of those are subsidised heavily.

As I have already said: I would be linking multiple conurbations to each other, which could therefore theoretically serve more people than live in London... so that could be a train that does this (as a totally random example) Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle-Darlington-York-Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester Piccadilly-Stockport-Crewe-Stafford-Birmingham-Cheltenham-Newport-Cardiff-Swansea. Do you see how that links more than just one conurbation, to more than just one more, therefore having more theoretical passenger potential than X to London? By your logic, every station in Britain would have a direct service to London and nowhere else, that being the centre of demand afterall And of course, your population statistics are ignoring the wider catchment area that people 'railhead' from and connecting passengers.

They haven't always been subsidised and their economics could be vastly improved if parasitic, profiteering, middle-men rolling stock leasing companies didn't exist for no apparent reason beyond short-sighted idealism.

 

[zwk500]

As I have already said: I would be linking multiple conurbations to each other, which could therefore theoretically serve more people than live in London... so that could be a train that does this (as a totally random example) Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle-Darlington-York-Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester Piccadilly-Stockport-Crewe-Stafford-Birmingham-Cheltenham-Newport-Cardiff-Swansea.

But my point is that even if you link all those towns up, the number of journeys people want to make along that axis is limited.

Do you see how that links more than just one conurbation, to more than just one more, therefore having more theoretical passenger potential than X to London?

I also see that you have to stop many, many times to try and get that potential passenger traffic, and by doing so make your paths uncompetitive against other options, such as Avanti or Driving. Serving London means you can run trains straight out. I've also pointed out, using a conurbation with 3 of the largest 5 cities after London, that it's still half the population of London. West mids + M62 corridor + Central belt still doesn't beat London.

If you're going to be patronising, it's best to hold a defensible position.

By your logic, every station in Britain would have a direct service to London and nowhere else, that being the centre of demand afterall

No, I accept subsidised services for the greater economic and societal good. My argument was that no route would be profitable for a private company unless 1 end was London, which so far is what the evidence shows us.

And of course, your population statistics are ignoring the wider catchment area that people 'railhead' from.

That's why I included the metro areas, and didn't use e.g. Station usage figures.

They haven't always been subsidised

When did they last make a stand-alone profit? I'm aware regional railway wasn't great for the actual cost/revenue of the routes, but I doubt these lines have made a profit since 1965, and the economic situation has changed somewhat since their 1920's heyday

and their economics could be vastly improved if parasitic, profiteering, middle-men rolling stock leasing companies didn't exist for no apparent reason beyond short-sighted idealism.

Leasing costs are not a major cost for the train companies, and if the stock wasn't leased the interest payments or other borrowing charges used to fund the purchase of the stock would probably be as high, if not higher.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Ok he is my silly idea. I think this would make money and have tried to get round major points of revenue abstraction concerns from other operators, Scottish government will no doubt have a moan but until they get their house in order with ScotRail as far as I'm concerned it's fair game. Inverness to Leeds and Birmingham portion worked with something like a double 4 car 755

Same stopping pattern as the the Highland chieftain as far as as per th0 and then either markinch, Dunfermline Queen Margaret and Edinburgh gateway or done Blaine, linlithgow and Edinburgh park. Service would then reverse in platform 0 at Haymarket and continue to carstairs, Lockerbie, and Carlisle where the train would divide. One portion for Appleby, Kirkby Stephen, settle, Skipton, Keighley, Shipley and Leeds and another portion to Lancaster, Stafford, Smethwick Galton bridge and Birmingham moor Street. Service could also potentially set down only at Penrith and oxenholme and and pick-up only northbound. If there was a park and ride type station on the suburbs of Preston I would call there also but the fight with Avanti who despite their own shower of **** word complain if I called Preston wouldn't be worth having.

A Wigan call could potentially work and be less controversial in that sense. But I'm conscious that I want this train to go fast whilst it can as it's a long journey to Birmingham from Inverness.

 

[Iskra]

But my point is that even if you link all those towns up, the number of journeys people want to make along that axis is limited.

I also see that you have to stop many, many times to try and get that potential passenger traffic, and by doing so make your paths uncompetitive against other options, such as Avanti or Driving. Serving London means you can run trains straight out. I've also pointed out, using a conurbation with 3 of the largest 5 cities after London, that it's still half the population of London. West mids + M62 corridor + Central belt still doesn't beat London.

If you're going to be patronising, it's best to hold a defensible position.

No, I accept subsidised services for the greater economic and societal good. My argument was that no route would be profitable for a private company unless 1 end was London, which so far is what the evidence shows us.

That's why I included the metro areas, and didn't use e.g. Station usage figures.

When did they last make a stand-alone profit? I'm aware regional railway wasn't great for the actual cost/revenue of the routes, but I doubt these lines have made a profit since 1965, and the economic situation has changed somewhat since their 1920's heyday

Leasing costs are not a major cost for the train companies, and if the stock wasn't leased the interest payments or other borrowing charges used to fund the purchase of the stock would probably be as high, if not higher.

It isn't purely about end to end journeys. If the number of journeys on that axis is limited, why do most of the stations have many trains between them?

Most trains stop at all those stations, very few have trains that pass through. Why would you run through at 15mph at a major station that you have to pass through, rather than stop? The paths aren't noncompetitive at all, you'd still run at max speed between the stations. Few passengers would travel end to end so total journey time is irrelevant. It would be about new direct links, improved connections and faster times between certain station groups.

My position is more than defensible, it is your London-centric view that is nonsensical in a country where 90% of the population doesn't live there and we already have express trains that don't go to London! Furthermore, I've already covered the reasons for the Open Access obsession with London.

Plenty of routes that don't go to London are profitable. It's just the overall franchises that aren't profitable, I'm sure all franchises will have individual routes that make money, even where the franchise makes a loss. It's all about how the franchises were designed to cross-subsidise routes.

I'm sure many routes that don't serve London make a profit, but then they are lumped in to franchises with loss-making routes and then the franchises look unprofitable.

Yes they are, they are probably the major cost. And no they would not, not on a 40 year old Sprinter they wouldn't, they'd have more than paid themselves and would therefore be effectively free by now and not still being charged at exorbitant rates.

Anyway, I think we fundamentally disagree and I don't think you understand the UK rail network, so I'm going to leave it here, thank you.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

This connects places like Oakham and Melton Mowbray to Derby and Leeds directly.

I grew up in Oakham and don't remember anyone wanting to go to either of those places!