Future routes for Open Access operators

[miklcct]

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.

This is out of reality as the West of England Line doesn't have the capacity.

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.

I'd go further saying that ANY change in London is bad. Even a one-segment tube journey is bad enough to put people off to alternative routes. This is a two-segment tube journey.

A London Terminal is not a nice small station where there are only 2-4 platforms side-by-side with the walk between platform doesn't take more than a minute. Changing at a London Terminal adds normally 15 minutes to the journey, and with a tube transfer in between, 30 minutes on paper. I always try to avoid London as it's a hassle to change trains there and usually results in a higher fare as well, unless it's much faster than any alternatives.

King's Cross St. Pancras is, in my opinion, the worst London Terminal for changing trains using the tube, that I tend to avoid any change involving it if possible. Unfortunately there isn't another choice if the train out of St Pancras / Kings Cross is an intercity long-distance train. When Eurostar relocated from Waterloo to St Pancras, there was a massive drop of ridership originating from the SWR-land, as Waterloo is the hardest to access from St Pancras.

If a path avoiding London can be found between major population centres outside London, where the current fastest way is to change at London, it will be a good candidate for open access operation.

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

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?


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?

If a service is time-comparable to the change at London, it will attract customers simply because travelling through London is a hassle.

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.

True. King's X is the worst.

 

[zwk500]

To some extent we saw this starting before covid, with the number of companies bidding for franchises decreasing...

The big warning shot was the collapse of the West Coast bid when the DfT asked companies to take on the pensions liability.

 

[martinsh]

OK, here you go:
St Albans, Luton, Bedford, Leicester, Loughborough, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Barnsley, Wakefield Kirkgate, Leeds.

To connect up some of the places on the Midland Mainline that blatantly should already be connected by direct services. And to annoy the London centric lobby it'll terminate just outside the M25

Not a bad suggestion, but how about

1) starting from West Hampstead (to connect with LU)

2) stopping at Ilkeston & Alfreton (no current direct services to London)

3) avoiding the pinch point of Sheffield by going via the “old road”. [ Maybe have a “Killamarsh Parkway” station ?!]

4) avoiding Leeds by going Chesterfield – Rotherham (Masborough) – Swinton – Bolton-on-Dearne – Pontefract – Church Fenton – York.

 

[Sonik]

Be careful what you wish for. Exposing the franchise operators to greater risk could lead to a commercial decision to take a step back.

I understand that, but the current system mainly incentivises TOCs to reduce subsidy, which is largely done by trying to reduce costs and extracting maximum revenue, rather than by improving the offer.

The success of some OAO shows that an improved offer, and particularly more flexibility with fares, can attract new passengers, which should work too for TOCs if they were suitably incentivised.

Unfortunately the TOCs too often have their hands tied by the meddling DfT, how many passengers are put off by bad seats? We don't know but I'm quite sure it happens. This shows very poor understanding of the market; airlines for example, compete on the the quality of their seat and legroom, even the budget carriers, because they know it's most important to passengers. I'm sure the TOCs would too if they were given free reign, as Lumo have shown.

 

[Bald Rick]

The success of some OAO shows…

That they are not on a level playing field with the ‘franchised’ TOCs, as explained upthread. If they paid the same for access to the infrastructure as the TOCs, it would be a different picture.

 

[Sonik]

That they are not on a level playing field with the ‘franchised’ TOCs, as explained upthread. If they paid the same for access to the infrastructure as the TOCs, it would be a different picture.

Yes, that was kind of my point. The railway should focus first on getting maximum bums on seats, to amortize the fixed costs over a larger number of passengers.

The current franchising system and fare structure does't seem to do that very well.

 

[Bald Rick]

The railway should focus first on getting maximum bums on seats

sort of, it should focus on getting maximum revenue for the resources deployed.

The current franchising system and fare structure does't seem to do that very well.

That I agree with. There’s a strong argument that fares regulation should be abandoned for long distance rail, as it is for the competition (Air and road).

 

[Clarence Yard]

That they are not on a level playing field with the ‘franchised’ TOCs, as explained upthread. If they paid the same for access to the infrastructure as the TOCs, it would be a different picture.

They do pay the same charges! The fixed track access charge is a misnomer - it’s just a way of “laundering” a DfT subsidy to NR, to pay for their residual funding requirement after all other charges have been raised. It goes up and down each year and franchised operators are totally protected from that change. It plays no part in “franchised” TOC business plans. You put the known figures for the control period in your franchise bid and then effectively forget about it.

Both “franchised” and OA operators effectively pay only the same suite of (mainly short run) marginal access costs in order to run their services. That’s how the Access and Management regs works. The DfT pays for the rest as a subsidy to NR, either directly through Network Grant or, if they can’t classify anymore as “Grant”, it is laundered through the TOCs, as “Fixed Track Access”.

 

[leytongabriel]

In the news. A report in the Somerset County Gazette that the Go-op propose a cooperatively run an OP Taunton - Westbury - Swindon service.
A 1.1 miilion fundraising appeal is to be launched aimed at ethically-minded investors.

Community and staff-owned trains 'to run on Somerset mainline' from 2023

TRAINS owned by passengers and staff could be running on the mainline track in Somerset by this time next year.

www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

In the news. A report in the Somerset County Gazette that the Go-op propose a cooperatively run an OP Taunton - Westbury - Swindon service.
A 1.1 miilion fundraising appeal is to be launched aimed at ethically-minded investors.

Community and staff-owned trains 'to run on Somerset mainline' from 2023

TRAINS owned by passengers and staff could be running on the mainline track in Somerset by this time next year.

www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk

Isn't Go-Op the group that apply at regular intervals with various ideas to justify running via Melksham?

 

[Darandio]

Isn't Go-Op the group that apply at regular intervals with various ideas to justify running via Melksham?

And have been trying in some shape or form for over 12 years now.......

 

[leytongabriel]

Isn't Go-Op the group that apply at regular intervals with various ideas to justify running via Melksham?

YES!

 

[swt_passenger]

In the news. A report in the Somerset County Gazette that the Go-op propose a cooperatively run an OP Taunton - Westbury - Swindon service.
A 1.1 miilion fundraising appeal is to be launched aimed at ethically-minded investors.

Community and staff-owned trains 'to run on Somerset mainline' from 2023

TRAINS owned by passengers and staff could be running on the mainline track in Somerset by this time next year.

www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk

Already noted in post #74. Hardly any replies though presumably because no one believes in them anymore.

 

[zwk500]

YES!

So we're expecting a couple of rounds of consultants reports, a failed ORR bid and then a couple of appeals before they go away again and have another go with the Gloucs + Wilts page of the Baker's Rail atlas?

 

[Bald Rick]

It goes up and down each year and franchised operators are totally protected from that change.

Protected from changes, yes.

 

[martinsh]

Got a few of these to throw out there for comments

Number One

St Pancras – Luton Airport (pu) – Bedford – Wellingborough – Leicester – EM Parkway – Ilkeston – Mansfield – Worksop

Apart from linking the Notts / Derby town direct to London, it would provide the following

• Reintroducing fast service from Wellingborough and Bedford to London.
• Reintroducing direct service from Wellingborough and Bedford to Leicester

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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.

My trouble is remembering which is the optimal route, despite being told several times!

If my destination on the SW is suburban, I'll use the Victoria line to Vauxhall.

 

[mike57]

The main issue though is capacity

Currently the full capacity is not being used, 2tph York Manchester, if they run.

A lot is wasted through the use of 3 coach trains

I agree, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the upgrades get canned, so it's more important rhat best use is made of capacity

 

[Bald Rick]

Got a few of these to throw out there for comments

Number One

St Pancras – Luton Airport – Bedford – Wellingborough – Leicester – EM Parkway – Ilkeston – Mansfield – Worksop

Apart from linking the Notts / Derby town direct to London, it would provide the following

• Reintroducing fast service from Wellingborough and Bedford to London.
• Reintroducing direct service from Wellingborough and Bedford to Leicester

No way would that pass the abstraction test.

No paths either!

 

[Trainbike46]

Instead of coming up with increasingly weird routings, maybe a better idea is to look at it like this:

To pass the not primarily abstractive test, an OAO needs to bring new traffic to rail. Hull trains and Grand Central did this by connecting relatively large places with london directly, making rail travel easier compared to alternatives, and brought in extra traffic that way. Lumo did this with cheap fares as well as effective branding. So, really the question becomes, in what way could a new OAO bring (a lot of) new traffic by rail?

And then of course, the operation would have to be profitable as well

 

[Iskra]

Instead of coming up with increasingly weird routings, maybe a better idea is to look at it like this:

To pass the not primarily abstractive test, an OAO needs to bring new traffic to rail. Hull trains and Grand Central did this by connecting relatively large places with london directly, making rail travel easier compared to alternatives, and brought in extra traffic that way. Lumo did this with cheap fares as well as effective branding. So, really the question becomes, in what way could a new OAO bring (a lot of) new traffic by rail?

And then of course, the operation would have to be profitable as well

While that is true, what a lot of the naysayers on this thread are missing is that new services (and therefore higher frequencies), do also automatically induce new demand (which is difficult to measure). Look at what happened on the TPE core when they upped the service frequency to every 15mins and then even further to 6tph- the trains got swamped at both stages. So it’s really easy to say a service wouldn’t work based on existing usage figures, population stats etc, but these don’t account for induced demand. I’m sure the industry experts can (try) forecast this to make fancy graphs, but nobody really knows what a service will do until it’s live. That’s why I think some posters should cut those making proposals on this thread a little more slack, rather than just rubbishing every suggestion made. It’s a thread about OA proposals, if we just say they virtually all won’t work, it’s a bit of a pointless one.

No way would that pass the abstraction test.

No paths either!

That’s a shame as it does restore some useful links.

Is the Abstractive Test fit for purpose if the railway genuinely wants Open Access competition?

 

[zwk500]

Instead of coming up with increasingly weird routings, maybe a better idea is to look at it like this:

To pass the not primarily abstractive test, an OAO needs to bring new traffic to rail. Hull trains and Grand Central did this by connecting relatively large places with london directly, making rail travel easier compared to alternatives, and brought in extra traffic that way. Lumo did this with cheap fares as well as effective branding. So, really the question becomes, in what way could a new OAO bring (a lot of) new traffic by rail?

And then of course, the operation would have to be profitable as well

I think, in the current economic climate, the Lumo model holds the most promise. Bonus points if you can connect somewhere without a good London service. So, places between which the Lumo model might work are limited as you need the highest volumes (London to big city). Really I could only see Paddington-Bristol and London-Glasgow corridors being viable. Then you'll need some different stops to prevent being overly abstractive, which the GW route might work via Newbury, but the WCML probably means stopping at Nuneaton, Tamworth and Hartford/Acton Bridge rather than Rugby, Stafford or Crewe. Finally, you'll need paths suitable for competitive journey times. The WCML requires EPS-capable stock to do so, and Paddington-Reading hasn't got any room left.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the Abstractive Test fit for purpose if the railway genuinely wants Open Access competition?

Im not sure it genuinely wants OA competition. ‘The Railway’ wants to serve more passenegrs for less subsidy, and OA tends to do the former but not the latter.

 

[Trainbike46]

While that is true, what a lot of the naysayers on this thread are missing is that new services (and therefore higher frequencies), do also automatically induce new demand (which is difficult to measure). Look at what happened on the TPE core when they upped the service frequency to every 15mins and then even further to 6tph- the trains got swamped at both stages. So it’s really easy to say a service wouldn’t work based on existing usage figures, population stats etc, but these don’t account for induced demand. I’m sure the industry experts can (try) forecast this to make fancy graphs, but nobody really knows what a service will do until it’s live. That’s why I think some posters should cut those making proposals on this thread a little more slack, rather than just rubbishing every suggestion made. It’s a thread about OA proposals, if we just say they virtually all won’t work, it’s a bit of a pointless one.

I see your point, and some of the suggestions do sound like they would be useful connections, and better frequency has repeatedly been shown to increase passenger numbers, both in the UK and other countries.

I was hoping to focus the discussion back on useful connections, and possibly away from the approach of taking weird detours that extend journey time just to pass the abstraction test - it won't work, because extending journey time doesn't attract new passengers, and it increases operating cost, making a business case harder.

Of course a lot of the posters on this threads suggested interesting connections that may be worth pursuing from a franchised operator's perspective, while being unsuitable for OAOs

 

[Parallel]

I’m not sure if it’s already been suggested but I could see an OA working between Hereford and London via Birmingham.

Worcester and Malvern seem to be fair generators of traffic towards London and Hereford is a city with a rather infrequent/poor direct service. The GWR direct services via Evesham are slow and I think it’s often quicker to change at Birmingham. I’d imagine a 5 car unit from Hereford stopping at Ledbury, Great Malvern, Malvern Link, Worcester Foregate Street, Droitwich Spa, Bromsgrove, Birmingham New Street and London Euston would be well loaded subject to competitive fares being available.

 

[swt_passenger]

My trouble is remembering which is the optimal route, despite being told several times!

If my destination on the SW is suburban, I'll use the Victoria line to Vauxhall.

Oxford Circus between Victoria and Bakerloo is the optimum, it’s short level passageways between platforms both ways.

 

[The Planner]

I’m not sure if it’s already been suggested but I could see an OA working between Hereford and London via Birmingham.

Worcester and Malvern seem to be fair generators of traffic towards London and Hereford is a city with a rather infrequent/poor direct service. The GWR direct services via Evesham are slow and I think it’s often quicker to change at Birmingham. I’d imagine a 5 car unit from Hereford stopping at Ledbury, Great Malvern, Malvern Link, Worcester Foregate Street, Droitwich Spa, Bromsgrove, Birmingham New Street and London Euston would be well loaded subject to competitive fares being available.

You wouldnt get the paths for it from Brum to Euston.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m not sure if it’s already been suggested but I could see an OA working between Hereford and London via Birmingham.

Worcester and Malvern seem to be fair generators of traffic towards London and Hereford is a city with a rather infrequent/poor direct service. The GWR direct services via Evesham are slow and I think it’s often quicker to change at Birmingham. I’d imagine a 5 car unit from Hereford stopping at Ledbury, Great Malvern, Malvern Link, Worcester Foregate Street, Droitwich Spa, Bromsgrove, Birmingham New Street and London Euston would be well loaded subject to competitive fares being available.

You wouldnt get the paths for it from Brum to Euston.

it would also be heavily abstractive, from H&W to Birmingham, Birmingham to London (which is where the money is), and to a lesser extent H&W to London.

it wouldn’t be any quicker to London either on a straight comparison. Clearly it would be quicker for Hereford - London passengers in the hours there is no direct service. But Worcester gets an hourly service, roughly, most of which go on to at least Malvern. That‘s a pretty good service.


it’s worth bearing in mind that many people have investigated all manner of possibilities for OA for the last twenty years. It’s reasonable to assume that if any were worth perusing, they have been pursued.

 

[martinsh]

No paths either!

Really ? Apart from Wellingborough all the stops already have at least 4 trains an hour to London already and we are only talking a handful of trains per day. I suppose we could always make Bedford & Wellingborough pick-up / set down only. Then it would just be a question of whether traffic from Leicester would outweigh that from all the other places further north.

 

[JonathanH]

Really ? Apart from Wellingborough all the stops already have at least 4 trains an hour to London already and we are only talking a handful of trains per day. I suppose we could always make Bedford & Wellingborough pick-up / set down only. Then it would just be a question of whether traffic from Leicester would outweigh that from all the other places further north.

Your premise here is that the DfT operator has made a commercial mistake in not running direct services from Bedford and Wellingborough to Leicester, and that there is enough demand from these stations to make a profitable business for the open access operator.

EMR clearly had the option to run slower services if there was a market, but as 'Bald Rick' has previously indicated the market is in fact small, and EMR believe that faster trains for Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield and other locations to London benefit more passengers than stopping trains would.

Do you think a stopping service on the MML would pay its way for the open access operator, without reducing revenues for Thameslink and EMR?