Future routes for Open Access operators

[zwk500]

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.

Sir, I worked for Network Rail for 5 years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2022 ==

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?

Politics, and greater societal good (subsidised).

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.

Glasgow to Manchester via M6 is 3h40, via existing Franchised operator is c.3h20. Glasgow to *Leeds* via Edinburgh (XC) is 4h20. You're right that Churn will be more important, but if you want a profit what you want are long-distance passengers who will spend money on the extras, not people making short hops like Newcastle-York and Leeds-Huddersfield.

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.

My London-Centric view isn't nonsensical, it's the rational economic view (which a private company without subsidy will be taking).

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.

Evidence for this please?

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.

Staffing is the major cost for all companies, but especially rail. Have a look at Figure 1 here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/understanding-the-rolling-stock-costs-of-uk-tocs.pdf (Page 9 of the report, 17 of the PDF).
On only 2 TOCs do Rolling stock costs outweigh staffing costs, and that includes every cost such as Fuel and maintenance on top of leasing.

 

[Bald Rick]

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 main challenge is that it would lose you a cart load of money.

Being around 11h end to end, you could only actually run about 4 services each way at 2hr intervals before you run out of time (and passengers). So you would presumably have some short working too. At a rough educated guess, such a service specification would cost over £100m a year to run. (Crew costs alone would be north of £25m).

As a comparison, Hull Trains costs about £35m per year to run, for 14 trains a day with efficient use of its resources. This proposal will need about 4-6 times as much resource.

I’m afraid to say that revenue on the corridor you propose is rather less than £100m, and your share would be rather less still especially when you are only running 4 through trains each way per day.

By removing a connection at Peterborough, Leeds to Great Yarmouth, something popular in the summer is doable

Popular by what definition?


As I put on another thread yesterday, Open Access only works if profitable to its backers, and that means it must go after high value flows. ’High Value’ means London must be involved, as there are simply no high value markets in the rest of the country.

 

[Trainfan344]

I still don't understand why people think people like making connections

 

[JonathanH]

I still don't understand why people think people like making connections

Even if people don't like making connections they are a fact of life that can't be avoided. It simply isn't possible to link every origin and destination.

 

[mike57]

Peterborough is a horrid place to change trains

No, Birmingham New Street used to be horrible, although its better these days. Manchester Piccadilly where Platform 13/14 is involved is poor, overcrowded and an internal gateline run by grumpy Northern contractors. Connections involving London terminuses are much worse, particularly Kings X - Waterloo. Peterborough has 7 platforms and no long walks, lifts and the ramps at the north end if you have a buggy or wheelie suitcase.

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

TPE hasn't run 'properly' since pre May 2018 since then there have long periods of unreliable service, with the ongoing shambles currently meaning that some days York - Manchester is down to 1 per hour. and Sheffield - Manchester is relying on Northern stoppers and EMR. The problem on these routes are paths. Any OA operator is going to have to take over TPE paths. I think the demand is there, and a proper 'Inter City' service calling at just York, Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester could be well filled and potentially profitable. A lot of people have actually abandonded (as in drive, or not travel) this route since May 2018, as reliability is just not good enough, and I think there is also an untapped demand which a decent reliable service would expose. Half hourly, comfortable Inter City stock, no other intermediate calls, starting/finishing at Manchester Pic rather than Vic.

I wonder if Avanti are in a similar place.

 

[43096]

Connections involving London terminuses are much worse, particularly Kings X - Waterloo.

I’m not sure how you think KX to Waterloo is that bad. It’s a pretty simple Victoria line to Oxford Circus then a cross-platform change to the Bakerloo.

 

[skyhigh]

Years ago we had direct trains from around the country to East Anglia, now most places require a change.

And it's worth considering why that's the case. Surely if they were successful they would still be run, no?

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.

Popular in the summer - maybe. But what about the rest of the year? Do you think the proposed open access operator would make all their profit between June and August?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2022 ==

I still don't understand why people think people like making connections

No, we understand people prefer not to have connections. But when the existing service with a connection is faster than your proposed direct service, why does it matter? Looking ahead advances are available for around £19 Norwich to Leeds. Could an open access running a handful of services a day beat that?

 

[Trainbike46]

Staffing is the major cost for all companies, but especially rail. Have a look at Figure 1 here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/understanding-the-rolling-stock-costs-of-uk-tocs.pdf (Page 9 of the report, 17 of the PDF).
On only 2 TOCs do Rolling stock costs outweigh staffing costs, and that includes every cost such as Fuel and maintenance on top of leasing.

It's terrifying how different the costs are between operators. There's some very confusing things in there, like, how did C2C spend so much money on diesel for their all-electric fleet?

though the per-vehicle km costs are somewhat lower than I expected them to be, £4.50 for the most expensive operator and £1.40 for the cheapest is not as bad as I expected them to be. Though clearly those will have increased now. It would be interesting to see an analysis for how and why these costs have changed between 2015 and the present day.

 

[cle]

So basically, where can a train run at speed out of London for a good clip - and then peel off to a under-/un-served branch line which isn't part of the core franchiser's route network.

And maybe add some 'inter city' stops to somewhere which is currently passed or overlooked (Hull Trains and Retford for instance)

 

[Mzzzs]

Huddersfield to London would fit an open-access operator.

​

 

[mike57]

Huddersfield to London would fit an open-access operator.

Grand Central? Problem is journey time via current GC route is quite long, but given current TPE meltdown maybe a good time to look at it, and its not a big strech from their current operations, they almost get there now.

 

[MattRat]

I know it's not London, but I think Liverpool to Llandudno would be popular, at least in the summer months. Right now you have to change at Chester, and people generally don't like having to change trains. It would also be quicker. There's certainly a lot of car traffic between the two that a train could alleviate.

 

[zwk500]

So basically, where can a train run at speed out of London for a good clip - and then peel off to a under-/un-served branch line which isn't part of the core franchiser's route network.

The big issue is getting those fast line paths on the major London radials - the GC proposal to Blackpool with Trent Valley stops held a lot of promise. With a bi-mode loco options to serve Blackburn, Burnley, or Barrow (what is it about the letter B in Lancashire?) also existed. Bolton would be a great extension of Manchester trains LNER-Style, but there's no way you'll be able to path a Pendo through the Castlefield bottlneck.
One route that might be viable is London-Birmingham-Tamworth-Burton (maybe terminate Derby). However the journey time after you've gone in and out of Birmingham isn't going to be wonderful and passing the Abstractive test is going to be difficult.

Huddersfield to London would fit an open-access operator.

Would certainly fit GC as an extension of current service.

 

[mike57]

I’m not sure how you think KX to Waterloo is that bad. It’s a pretty simple Victoria line to Oxford Circus then a cross-platform change to the Bakerloo.

From King's X which is always where I arrive its the one that involves a change, and going through the west end gets very busy. Paddington, Liverpool Street and Victoria are the other transfers I have done a few times over the years and these always seem easier. To be honest if you have luggage anything using the tube can be a challenge. Depending on time of day I will sometimes just grab a taxi.

 

[Ken H]

The core cross country route york - Brum has to be a candidate. How you do that while passing the abstraction test i am not sure. Maybe Leeds - Worksop- Nottingham - Leicester - Brum? Need to get my crayons out.

 

[D365]

Peterborough is a horrid place to change trains…

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

For a Rutland to Leeds journey, you’d be changing at Leicester and Chesterfield/Sheffield.

Crayons this is indeed.

 

[JonathanH]

The core cross country route york - Brum has to be a candidate. How you do that while passing the abstraction test i am not sure. Maybe Leeds - Worksop- Nottingham - Leicester - Brum? Need to get my crayons out.

That sort of diversion isn't going to lead to lots of passengers though. Superfast Leeds - Manchester - Warrington - Birmingham is more likely if you were going to cherry pick an alternative route but equally difficult to pass an abstraction test (or indeed get a path).

 

[zwk500]

That sort of diversion isn't going to lead to lots of passengers though. Superfast Leeds - Manchester - Warrington - Birmingham is more likely if you were going to cherry pick an alternative route but equally difficult to pass an abstraction test (or indeed get a path).

Leeds, Bradford, Hebden Bridge, Rochdale, Manchester Victoria, (fast via Newton & Warrington), Stafford, Wolves, Tame Bridge Parkway, New Street?

I suspect the only way to get a path and not be abstractive would be York, Leeds, Chesterfield (via Old Road), Burton (via Erewash and Castle Donnington), Tamworth, Birmingham. But not serving Derby and Sheffield isn't a very good strategy for profitability.

 

[JonathanH]

Leeds, Bradford, Hebden Bridge, Rochdale, Manchester Victoria, (fast via Newton & Warrington), Stafford, Wolves, Tame Bridge Parkway, New Street?

Bradford might have an appeal to get past the abstraction tests but it makes it somewhat slow for travellers from Leeds. I reckon starting in Bradford rather than Leeds might help (a bit) with the abstraction issue.

I suspect the only way to get a path and not be abstractive would be York, Leeds, Chesterfield (via Old Road), Burton (via Erewash and Castle Donnington), Tamworth, Birmingham. But not serving Derby and Sheffield isn't a very good strategy for profitability.

Yes, although York to Leeds is fairly congested at Leeds East End.

 

[zwk500]

Bradford might have an appeal to get past the abstraction tests but it makes it somewhat slow for travellers from Leeds. I reckon starting in Bradford rather than Leeds might help (a bit) with the abstraction issue.

I thought the train was originating in York?

Yes, although York to Leeds is fairly congested at Leeds East End.

Well there's not a lot that could be done about that. You need somewhere to provide passengers.

 

[philosopher]

Here is my idea for cross channel services from Birmingham and Manchester to Paris.

One service from Birmingham with stops in Coventry and Milton Keynes and accessing Paris via HS1 and the Channel Tunnel. Another service from Manchester with a stop in Stoke on Trent.

It would only be slightly revenue abstractive as only passengers travelling to and from France would be allowed to use the services. Eurostar though perhaps would suffer slightly.

There is the small issue of border controls to sort out and how to access HS1 from the West Coast Mainline.

 

[Philip]

I think once the Westhoughton line is electrified it'll open up a few possibilities for OA services from the South and Midlands via WCML or Chiltern to serve Bolton and Manchester Victoria, possibly carrying onto Rochdale or Stalybridge.

 

[zwk500]

There is the small issue of border controls to sort out and how to access HS1 from the West Coast Mainline.

WCML to HS1 is much easier to resolve than the border controls! The track already exists: WCML Slows to Camden Road, then hang a right onto the connecting track. IIRC the signalling was never commissioned, but the interlocking does allow for it so in theory it's possible. Getting onto the Slows might be fiddly, but it's doable.

I think once the Westhoughton line is electrified it'll open up a few possibilities for OA services from the South and Midlands via WCML or Chiltern to serve Bolton and Manchester Victoria, possibly carrying onto Rochdale or Stalybridge.

Not via Chiltern it won't, there's no space at Marylebone. Vague possibility of doing it from Euston, but it'd require every train to reverse at Wigan Westgate which won't be easy to path. Bolton would be the termination point of any OAO proposal, I feel. Serving Bolton-Manchester Victoria-Rochdale/Stalybridge would start to abstract much more than the London-Bolton leg generates. You'd also need random stops on the WCML to avoid abstracting Avanti or LNWR traffic. Potential, but it's a hard case to make.

 

[JonathanH]

There is the small issue of border controls to sort out and how to access HS1 from the West Coast Mainline.

Not to mention how to generate enough demand without being able to accommodate domestic travellers.

I think once the Westhoughton line is electrified it'll open up a few possibilities for OA services from the South and Midlands via WCML or Chiltern to serve Bolton and Manchester Victoria, possibly carrying onto Rochdale or Stalybridge.

Pretty sure that particular intervention won't make any difference.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is the small issue of border controls to sort out and how to access HS1 from the West Coast Mainline.

The latter is easy - the track is there.

The former is not easy.

but the biggest issue is that there isn’t the market for this. not by a long way.



as for any ‘cross country’ routes - remember that Cross Country doesn’t serve London….

 

[Philip]

Not via Chiltern it won't, there's no space at Marylebone. Vague possibility of doing it from Euston, but it'd require every train to reverse at Wigan Westgate which won't be easy to path. Bolton would be the termination point of any OAO proposal, I feel. Serving Bolton-Manchester Victoria-Rochdale/Stalybridge would start to abstract much more than the London-Bolton leg generates. You'd also need random stops on the WCML to avoid abstracting Avanti or LNWR traffic. Potential, but it's a hard case to make.

What about a service from London or West Mids going via Denton after Stockport to reach Victoria and then Bolton-Chorley-Preston or Bolton-Blackburn? An 80x train or bi-mode loco would suffice rather than Denton having to be electrified.

 

[The Planner]

What about a service from London or West Mids going via Denton after Stockport to reach Victoria and then Bolton-Chorley-Preston or Bolton-Blackburn? An 80x train or bi-mode loco would suffice rather than Denton having to be electrified.

What market would you be trying to tap in to? Unless it was dirt cheap the time penalty would still push people through Picc and any stops at places like Stoke and Macc would be abstractive.

 

[Philip]

What market would you be trying to tap in to? Unless it was dirt cheap the time penalty would still push people through Picc and any stops at places like Stoke and Macc would be abstractive.

Principally direct services to London, Birmingham, Milton Keynes etc from Lancashire towns like Bolton, Blackburn or Chorley which currently don't have a connection. The change at Piccadilly isn't the easiest either because of the unreliability through Castlefield and having to cross from platforms 13/14 into the main station.
If there is a London market for places like Telford, Shrewsbury, Sunderland, Halifax and Bradford then I don't see why there wouldn't be a market from Bolton, Blackburn and Chorley.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Interesting.

What will be a shame (for some) moving forward will be the deceleration of Manchester Avanti services meaning Nuneaton, Rugby and Stafford getting more trains.

The reason I mention that is that it would have made the Grand Central Blackpool a lot more difficult to turn into something successful as I believe they were going to have a stab at tapping into London to Nuneaton, and Milton Keynes to Crewe. If connectivity improved, it would have made their little operation less viable.

That said, if we had a situation whereby we did seek to deliberately cause the network to be as efficient as possible for “proper” TOCs, e.g. not running loads of trains for the sake of it and considering where the balance of frequency vs length was, we might find ourselves in a different scenario.

Obviously the government should seek to make sure that key routes are run. I would use the second London to Liverpool as an example of that. That said, if I were in government today and I didn’t like the idea of having to pay for all sorts of politically-friendly services, I’d find a proportion of what it would cost me to run said trains via TOCs, and give it to regional transport bodies. They in turn could then work with DfT and ORR to access “spare paths” that would be deliberately left in the system for use.

Examples might include deliberately punching an hourly slot of a London, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Crewe in, and then scattering it about as a 110mph path enabling people to procure suitable stock and traction. If you assume that every 2 hours I as the government would put my shiny new 807s on a second Liverpool, I’d then leave enough space for Blackpool and Stirling trains to run every 4 hours apiece.

I’d also be obligated to see how I could amend calling patterns on existing TOC services to open up connectivity to the interchanges these call at. So I might make the North Wales or the Manchester via Crewe stop at Watford, Nuneaton and Stafford before Crewe so as to make sure people can fundamentally get where they need to go.

I don’t believe the Stirling service will be a success, but I do reckon the Blackpool would have been pretty good. I never was convinced by GNWR’s almost endless suggestions of Rochdale or Carlisle via Barrow; nor that weird GNER to Cleethorpes via Cambridge.

I think if we assume that Hull stays and Sunderland stays, it might be expedient to suggest LNER should be stopping Harrogate in favour of an enhanced Metro-style service, freeing them up to run to Forster Square every hour and negating quite a significant reason for GC’s Bradford to be needed. Especially if you had an LNER to Huddersfield, that is.

I think Grand Union’s Carmarthen could be very successful, especially with what they propose. GWR aren’t serving the market very well, especially when using 387s.

I don’t suspect the Go-Op will work, to be honest.

I would like to see some routes start but I suspect the finding of paths on what hasn’t been done would be difficult. Any examples coming to mind don’t work, and are only additions or amendments to existing.

 

[WAB]

I still don't understand why people think people like making connections

You can't have trains from everywhere to everywhere, and the complex network we have just chews up capacity.