How could Lumo expand/develop/improve?

[ScotTrains]

I would have thought it would be far better to increase the XC or LNER services back to Glasgow, providing direct services to the numerous locations along the ECML, rather than Lumo's few stopping points.

Pre COVID the 9am and 11am XC departures from Glasgow were always packed especially at the weekends. In fact it's the only time I've ever seen platform staff (at Motherwell) refusing to let anyone else board due to the train being so full.
Also, from my experience it looked like the majority (well at least half) would stay on beyond Edinburgh.

 

[A S Leib]

I would have thought it would be far better to increase the XC or LNER services back to Glasgow, providing direct services to the numerous locations along the ECML, rather than Lumo's few stopping points.

Pre COVID the 9am and 11am XC departures from Glasgow were always packed especially at the weekends. In fact it's the only time I've ever seen platform staff (at Motherwell) refusing to let anyone else board due to the train being so full.
Also, from my experience it looked like the majority (well at least half) would stay on beyond Edinburgh.

Not that I wouldn't welcome far more direct Peterborough, Sheffield, Leeds and York to Glasgow services, but going via Lancaster's effectively the same duration as via Edinburgh from Leeds, and the quickest route (just about) from Sheffield to Glasgow's a same-platform interchange at Manchester Oxford Road. From Newcastle, Glasgow's normally around half an hour further via Carlisle than via Edinburgh (although that does depend on how quickly you can make connections at Waverley and whether you mind using Queen Street as well).

It's long enough of a journey that most passengers would probably be going overnight anyway, but as changing at Wolverhampton means Bristol to Glasgow's doable in ~6:15 with a 45 minute wait or ~6:30 via Manchester compared to at least 7:30 via the ECML, I think direct services between Cheltenham / and further south and Glasgow is a question to be dealt with when / if HS2 reaches northern England.

 

[kylemore]

Though, of course, Lumo isn't primarily targetting Avanti (or LNER) they're targeting airlines where even an 803s interior would beat most economy class aircraft.

Well exactly - the main enemy here is Ryanair and Easyjet - the petty squabbles between rail operators should be largely regarded as irrelevant. Lumo would be wise to make their case on environmental grounds.

 

[whoosh]

I expect it'll be one train a day. The 12:18 from King's Cross currently goes straight to Craigentinny upon arrival at Edinburgh, so expect that one to be extended to Glasgow.
And the 09:24 from Edinburgh (the same until that did the 12:18 the day before) starts from Craigentinny. That could start back from Glasgow.

It effectively sweats the assets more. Just as as the proposed earlier Newcastle to London, and later Kings Cross to Newcastle will sweat the assets more making those additional trips, than the unit sitting at Ferme Park/Bounds Green (which it currently does).

 

[paul1609]

Not true in this case.

They have emptied the skies, or made a good start anyway, discounted otherwise exploitative fares that tend to arise when there is only one operator and added capacity on a route with huge latent demand (as do many others). It is now cheaper to get a train from Newcastle to London than from Newcastle to Birmingham.

It is just a shame they have 5 cars and not 9 and don't operate over Cross Country routes.

Comparing Dec 19 and Dec 23 despite generally booming air travel last year:

Heathrow - Edinburgh 93.8k / 85.5k
Gatwick - Edinburgh 60.0k / 39.2k
London City - Edinburgh 36.5k / 28k

I don't actually believe that Lumo has made any noticeable reduction in domestic air traffic. It is primarily abstracting from LNER. The reductions that you quote in air traffic are as a result of connecting traffic from Edinburgh switching from London airports to Amsterdam mainly as a result of BA pulling out of most of its short and medium destinations from Gatwick. The remainder is as a result of the general downturn in business travel since the pandemic which affects rail as badly as air. I can see that rail generally has impacted the city centre to city centre air business over a long period but I think Lumo specifically with 4? small trains a day has a negligible/ non existent effect.

 

[AdamWW]

Not true in this case.

They have emptied the skies, or made a good start anyway, discounted otherwise exploitative fares that tend to arise when there is only one operator and added capacity on a route with huge latent demand (as do many others). It is now cheaper to get a train from Newcastle to London than from Newcastle to Birmingham.

I may have my history incorrect but my understanding was that Lumo uses paths that were specifically designated for an open access operator and therefore not available to LNER, rather than LNER taking all the capacity it wanted and Lumo existing because that left some paths available.

It is also abundantly clear that while Lumo may provide a cheaper alternative, it is not doing much to lower fares on LNER.

 

[Peter0124]

I expect it'll be one train a day. The 12:18 from King's Cross currently goes straight to Craigentinny upon arrival at Edinburgh, so expect that one to be extended to Glasgow.
And the 09:24 from Edinburgh (the same until that did the 12:18 the day before) starts from Craigentinny. That could start back from Glasgow.

It effectively sweats the assets more. Just as as the proposed earlier Newcastle to London, and later Kings Cross to Newcastle will sweat the assets more making those additional trips, than the unit sitting at Ferme Park/Bounds Green (which it currently does).

Can't see it being the 09:24 from EDB when the one a day southbound XC from Glasgow leaves EDB at 09:07.

Ideally it should be a later leaving train, leaving Glasgow between 10:00-14:00. No point running it like 20 minutes after the XC.

 

[CarrotPie]

I don't actually believe that Lumo has made any noticeable reduction in domestic air traffic. It is primarily abstracting from LNER. The reductions that you quote in air traffic are as a result of connecting traffic from Edinburgh switching from London airports to Amsterdam mainly as a result of BA pulling out of most of its short and medium destinations from Gatwick. The remainder is as a result of the general downturn in business travel since the pandemic which affects rail as badly as air. I can see that rail generally has impacted the city centre to city centre air business over a long period but I think Lumo specifically with 4? small trains a day has a negligible/ non existent effect.

Those 5 trains a day give 2008 seats, which is quite a lot...

Furthermore, I refer you to this article on Lumo taking air customers: https://news.stv.tv/east-central/ra...g-between-edinburgh-and-london-for-first-time

It is also abundantly clear that while Lumo may provide a cheaper alternative, it is not doing much to lower fares on LNER.

Because LNER serves people from smaller intermediate stations (and those connecting through hubs like Peterborough and York), rather than capital-capital travellers. First Class on LNER is also something you won't get on Lumo.

 

[AdamWW]

Because LNER serves people from smaller intermediate stations (and those connecting through hubs like Peterborough and York), rather than capital-capital travellers.

It certainly serves those passengers, unlike Lumo, but are you suggesting that LNER doesn't carry significant numbers of people travelling directly between London and Newcastle/Edinburgh?
That would seem rather suprising to me.

Furthermore, I refer you to this article on Lumo taking air customers: https://news.stv.tv/east-central/ra...g-between-edinburgh-and-london-for-first-time

A curious article:

Between April and August 2022, for the first time more than half of journeys, 57%, between Edinburgh and London were by rail, compared to 35% of journeys before the Covid pandemic.

Which of course in itself doesn't say that Lumo is responsible. A lot of things have changed in that time other than an open access operator running a few services a day. Do they even have the capacity to make that much difference?

Well, it goes on to say:

Martijn Gilbert, managing director of Lumo, commented: “The increase in rail’s share of passengers between London and Edinburgh demonstrates the value Lumo has brought to the East Coast Main Line.

“Not only have we attracted passengers to cleaner transport, we have noticed that other operators have also increased their market share. Together we have convinced the public that the convenience, price and environmental impact of rail is well worth it.”

There doesn't seem to be any evidence presented for the claim "The increase ... demonstrates the value Lumo has brought to the East Coast Main Line."
They seem to be implying that somehow other operators getting more market share has been caused by Lumo having started up.
I can think of other reasons. A lot has changed since the pandemic.

I think a more likely interpretation of that article is that there has been a shift from air to rail and that Lumo has, by its existance, taken some of that.

 

[paul1609]

Those 5 trains a day give 2008 seats, which is quite a lot...

Furthermore, I refer you to this article on Lumo taking air customers: https://news.stv.tv/east-central/ra...g-between-edinburgh-and-london-for-first-time

But the 2008 seats arent available for Edinburgh to London because they are largely taken with Newcastle to London passengers which is Lumos biggest market.

The article you refer to is just a regurgitated Lumo Press release. The Edinburgh to London air market has shrunk because people are now flying either direct or are interchanging at Amsterdam or Paris which are the 2 and 3 largest passenger flows from Edinburgh its called the Ryanair effect. No London airport is in the top 10 passenger flow.

Lumos extraction has been primarily from LNER and its hurting. Thats why we are seeing ticketing trials such as the abolition of return tickets and superoff peak tickets quasi compulsory reservations etc. to try and regain the lost revenue from their primary market.

 

[cle]

So this is the thing:

A Glasgow-Newcastle seat sold precludes a more valuable London-Edinburgh one. Or is it? If a seat is sold for G-N and then 'resold' for N-L, that might be more lucrative than E-L.

Keen to understand the Newcastle v Edinburgh sales and demand. I don't think York will ever play a part here, or should.

It's great to have competition. I don't personally believe in the concept of abstraction - these entrants stimlate users and demand, much like any new successful brand of service/product. And indeed, like an airline (no-one begrudges Easyjet abstracting from BA, and LHR is irrelevant, BMI were around for donkeys) - this is the market. It can be grown, and it can be scrapped over.

And people can still choose LNER - but now they have to tighten up their product, pricing/value prop, and experience. Good.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The shift from air has largely been because of Lumo. The cheaper end of the market was being priced off rail and it was, for that end of the market, increasingly difficult to get a seat anyway.

Lumo has knocked off plenty of air punters. It doesn’t really have LNER in its sights, it’s not really that interested in what it does and LNER can quite cheerfully keep its yield high on the Edinburgh run because their demand is still very high.

London to Edinburgh rail has grown substantially so I don’t understand where the abstraction argument is coming from. There hasn’t been a huge transfer from LNER to Lumo.

Glasgow is about tapping into the Glasgow to London air market. Lumo isn’t concerned about Avanti or what it does.

 

[CarrotPie]

It's great to have competition. I don't personally believe in the concept of abstraction - these entrants stimlate users and demand, much like any new successful brand of service/product. And indeed, like an airline (no-one begrudges Easyjet abstracting from BA, and LHR is irrelevant, BMI were around for donkeys) - this is the market. It can be grown, and it can be scrapped over.

Fuller-service OAOs than Lumo could encourage people to switch from the franchised operator, which encourages competition (good) but takes revenue away from the Treasury (bad (for them)), which is what they don't like.

 

[whoosh]

Can't see it being the 09:24 from EDB when the one a day southbound XC from Glasgow leaves EDB at 09:07.

Ideally it should be a later leaving train, leaving Glasgow between 10:00-14:00. No point running it like 20 minutes after the XC.

With all the stops that Cross Country train has, it might be viewed as serving a different market.

But the 2008 seats arent available for Edinburgh to London because they are largely taken with Newcastle to London passengers which is Lumos biggest market.

Not so long ago I watched a video of Mathew Lee, when he worked for Lumo, during which he stated that most passengers were "end to end". So London to Edinburgh or vice-versa.
Unless things have changed, then that would therefore be Lumo's biggest market, rather than Newcastle to London.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not so long ago I watched a video of Mathew Lee, when he worked for Lumo, during which he stated that most passengers were "end to end". So London to Edinburgh or vice-versa.
Unless things have changed, then that would therefore be Lumo's biggest market, rather than Newcastle to London.

That would tally with my, admittedly limit, observations of Lumo services leaving Edinburgh, they always seem busy!

 

[Christmas]

How do Lumo deal with walk-up passengers who hold anytime returns, off peak returns or indeed staff PRIV tickets? Is it purely reservations only?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How do Lumo deal with walk-up passengers who hold anytime returns, off peak returns or indeed staff PRIV tickets? Is it purely reservations only?

The trains are marked reservations compulsory, although since COVID that doesn't mean very much (all Avanti 390s still say they are despite all having 1 or 3 unreserved carriages).

 

[stevieinselby]

It isn't. Coaches could have trolleys, they just don't find it economic.

On the National Express there's a jolly hostess
Selling crisps and tea
She'll provide you with drinks and theatrical winks
For a sky-high fee

The purpose of Lumo is to make a profit. How would it not do that?

The purpose of Lumo from Lumo's point of view is to make a profit.
The purpose of Lumo from the railway's point of view is to develop new markets that are not well served by other TOCs.
Adding more stops to the service would make it increasingly difficult to justify the argument that it is not primarily abstractive.

As neither LNER or Cross Country now has any interest in serving the Glasgow/East Coast market, well done to Lumo for filling the gap. The simplest thing would be for them to take over the unused paths of those two operators between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh via Carstairs so no capacity or pathing issues. The only problem might be then fitting into the ECML timetable south of Edinburgh.

I believe that LNER and XC pulled out of the Glasgow to Edinburgh route when Scotrail upgraded their service from 3/6-car 170s to 8-car 385s as there was felt to be no longer any need for it. With the Scotrail service running every 15 minutes and being up to 15 minutes quicker than the IC services via Motherwell, and now having ample capacity, demand for travel between Glasgow and Newcastle/Yorkshire wasn't enough to justify a direct service when there was a perfectly good alternative with one change.

 

[Christmas]

On the National Express there's a jolly hostess
Selling crisps and tea
She'll provide you with drinks and theatrical winks
For a sky-high fee


The purpose of Lumo from Lumo's point of view is to make a profit.
The purpose of Lumo from the railway's point of view is to develop new markets that are not well served by other TOCs.
Adding more stops to the service would make it increasingly difficult to justify the argument that it is not primarily abstractive.


I believe that LNER and XC pulled out of the Glasgow to Edinburgh route when Scotrail upgraded their service from 3/6-car 170s to 8-car 385s as there was felt to be no longer any need for it. With the Scotrail service running every 15 minutes and being up to 15 minutes quicker than the IC services via Motherwell, and now having ample capacity, demand for travel between Glasgow and Newcastle/Yorkshire wasn't enough to justify a direct service when there was a perfectly good alternative with one change.

Passengers arriving into Glasgow Central do like having a train in that station to take them to their east coast destinations though. The alternative is a ten minute walk, with luggage, to Queen Street to board a ScotRail shuttle to Waverley only to charge trains and platform yet again.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Glasgow is about tapping into the Glasgow to London air market. Lumo isn’t concerned about Avanti or what it does.

I'm sure Lumo is very interested in what Avanti does. One FirstGroup company gets money for nothing (their own words) from the government for running a completely sub par service and then another FirstGroup company steps in and takes some its disaffected customers, revenue and profit - the revenue and profit bit being taken from the government rather than its sister company. Win - win for FirstGroup.

 

[jagardner1984]

I'm sure Lumo is very interested in what Avanti does. One FirstGroup company gets money for nothing (their own words) from the government for running a completely sub par service and then another FirstGroup company steps in and takes some its disaffected customers, revenue and profit - the revenue and profit bit being taken from the government rather than its sister company. Win - win for FirstGroup.

I must say this is the angle that seems most missed here - I would assume there is some form of weekly zoom for First Rail Upper Management - sure there is perfectly reasonable information sharing that will enhance the service - issues that may be faced in one area and how another has dealt with the same issue ....

It seems incredulous to me that this proposal would have got anywhere near the public gaze without the tacit approval of First as a whole that this would be financially beneficial to First, as a whole, i.e. the net effect of the additional cost would be to take additional First revenue, rather than to eat into existing First revenue.

Personally I think it will throw rather an interesting light on proceedings if they can run well loaded trains on an axis that other operators are simultaneously suggesting aren't worth even the pitiful service currently offered. As others have said, however simple some may claim it to be, the popularity of Cross Country services (for example) on routes which there are faster services (requiring a change), would suggest that for SOME travellers, there is real appeal in being able to sit down at a seat in Glasgow with your cuppa, and remaining in it until Newcastle without navigating the mayhem of, for example, Waverley during the festival.

I'd have thought that the Falkirk High, slotting into one of the many unused paths Scotrail seem to have little interest in reutilising, would open up many more opportunities (for example better connectivity beyond Glasgow) than yet another poorly timed, slack filled pathing via Carstairs.

I thought it was interesting to refer back to the business case for the EGIP programme and the stated desire for 37 minute journeys on 6tph from 2025 ....

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/33804/egip-fbc_-publically-available-version_27012014.pdf

Obviously a lot has changed since 2014, and the programme as delivered offers a huge step forward from the long slog of a 170 up the Queen Street incline, but still feel there are opportunities to improve connectivity from the current 50 min + service, and 2tph. Lumo could play a (initially very small) part of that.

 

[Falcon1200]

I believe that LNER and XC pulled out of the Glasgow to Edinburgh route when Scotrail upgraded their service from 3/6-car 170s to 8-car 385s as there was felt to be no longer any need for it.

LNER reduced their Glasgow service to the 1 train a day rump way back around 2010/11, so that the stock could be better used (in their view) improving more profitable services, such as Leeds/Kings X. XC stepped into the breach with their 2-hourly service but this was (mostly) dumped with Covid, and has not (yet, if ever) been restored. Given the lack of frequency neither service was really a viable competitor for Glasgow/Edinburgh traffic.

 

[JonathanH]

Given the lack of frequency neither service was really a viable competitor for Glasgow/Edinburgh traffic.

The slow journey time via Carstairs doesn't help either.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I must say this is the angle that seems most missed here - I would assume there is some form of weekly zoom for First Rail Upper Management - sure there is perfectly reasonable information sharing that will enhance the service - issues that may be faced in one area and how another has dealt with the same issue ....

It seems incredulous to me that this proposal would have got anywhere near the public gaze without the tacit approval of First as a whole that this would be financially beneficial to First, as a whole, i.e. the net effect of the additional cost would be to take additional First revenue, rather than to eat into existing First revenue.

Your assumption would be wrong. The senior FG rail team meet on a much less frequent basis than that and when they do meet, the discussions are high level, not really going into detail. So the OA MD will not have much level of detail about what is currently going on at Avanti and vice versa.

In this case, the aim of the proposal by Lumo is on eating into air travel, not eating into Avanti’s business. The only caveat on this ignoring of Avanti is in making sure that any proposal does not fall foul of the ORR’s NPA and absolute abstraction tests. Of course, it helps FG in that they don’t have to consider any internal revenue effect because, thanks to the lack of real revenue risk in DfT TOC management fees, there isn’t any. It’s the DfT’s problem.

I think some on here fail to grasp the way Lumo operates with more of a focus on what the air market competition is up to, rather than what the on rail competition is doing. It doesn’t ignore the latter, of course, because of the target yield per market but it is in a different place to the usual UK TOC vs TOC situation.

 

[Trainbike46]

Lumos extraction has been primarily from LNER and its hurting. Thats why we are seeing ticketing trials such as the abolition of return tickets and superoff peak tickets quasi compulsory reservations etc. to try and regain the lost revenue from their primary market.

I don't think you can blame ticketing trials that are clearly being pushed by the government on Lumo!

And people can still choose LNER - but now they have to tighten up their product, pricing/value prop, and experience. Good.

The new pricing trials aren't making LNER more attractive, I'd say

Then again, my understanding is that LNER is above pre-covid passenger levels, so clearly Lumo hasn't taken too many of their passengers!

I think some on here fail to grasp the way Lumo operates with more of a focus on what the air market competition is up to, rather than what the on rail competition is doing. It doesn’t ignore the latter, of course, because of the target yield per market but it is in a different place to the usual UK TOC vs TOC situation.

Personally, I think too much of the attention within certain TOCs, and on this forum, is on TOC to TOC competition. The really important competition is from other modes, such as flying, driving, etc. If Lumo is able to get passengers out of planes and onto the railway, that is a win to me. We should be working to get more passengers onto the railway (and public transport in general) - not to move passengers from TOC A to TOC B

 

[Bertie the bus]

I think some on here fail to grasp the way Lumo operates with more of a focus on what the air market competition is up to, rather than what the on rail competition is doing. It doesn’t ignore the latter, of course, because of the target yield per market but it is in a different place to the usual UK TOC vs TOC situation.

Yeah, right. Lumo's main aim isn't to increase revenue and profit, it is to reduce the number of flights. How public spirited of it. So when one FG company creates a ready made market for another FG company by its actions the latter company isn't in any way going to take advantage of that, especially when taking its customers won't have any detrimental effect on Avanti?

We've seen from the Avanti leak how FG companies operate and think and how little they care about how they make their money so claiming Lumo is on some crusade to save the planet and just target air passengers really isn't very convincing.

 

[Trainbike46]

Yeah, right. Lumo's main aim isn't to increase revenue and profit, it is to reduce the number of flights. How public spirited of it. So when one FG company creates a ready made market for another FG company by its actions the latter company isn't in any way going to take advantage of that?

No, Lumo's aim is to maximise it's profit, and their current strategy of achieving that is to get former flight traffic onto their rail service.

They can't directly target the railway, because doing so would mean they wouldn't get ORR approval

 

[Killingworth]

Currently LNER, Lumo, TPE and Crosscountry are all competing for business between Newcastle and Edinburgh with other combinations south of there. My grandson was unable to get a Lumo ticket, his prefered operator, from Newcastle to London before Christmas and went by overnight coach. I'm sure flying didn't come into his serious calculations - time of flight, total time for trip, overall cost, getting from Heathrow to Essex.

The general competition is increasing the number of rail users. For the young man that means one way or another he travels more often. Whether that's a good or bad thing for the climate is another discussion.

 

[jagardner1984]

Your assumption would be wrong. The senior FG rail team meet on a much less frequent basis than that and when they do meet, the discussions are high level, not really going into detail. So the OA MD will not have much level of detail about what is currently going on at Avanti and vice versa.

In this case, the aim of the proposal by Lumo is on eating into air travel, not eating into Avanti’s business. The only caveat on this ignoring of Avanti is in making sure that any proposal does not fall foul of the ORR’s NPA and absolute abstraction tests. Of course, it helps FG in that they don’t have to consider any internal revenue effect because, thanks to the lack of real revenue risk in DfT TOC management fees, there isn’t any. It’s the DfT’s problem.

I think some on here fail to grasp the way Lumo operates with more of a focus on what the air market competition is up to, rather than what the on rail competition is doing. It doesn’t ignore the latter, of course, because of the target yield per market but it is in a different place to the usual UK TOC vs TOC situation.

Sure - I of course am not party to the diaries of managers in any rail company, and I guess you aren’t either - but it seems unlikely to me that there isn’t, on whatever informal level, some kind of “we are thinking of running trains to the same place you run trains to, here is our logic” will have taken place. I find it difficult to believe communication is so dysfunctional for that not to have happened, in some form.

As for the claims of Lumo emptying the skies, I would say those have been vigorously disputed by others elsewhere in this thread. Specifically on the Glasgow proposal, the routes are either not served by air (GLC-NCL), or wildly uncompetitive on timings to even the incumbent operator, which are themselves wildly uncompetitive to many of the air routes (GLC-KGX). Aside from any issues Avanti may be having that day finding someone to drive the trains, from my observation of recent flights from Glasgow Airport (which have not bounced back from COVID as strongly as Edinburgh) - the market for Glasgow London flights seems to be doing just fine, and there will need to be a lot of movement in the taxation structure, reliability of rail services, timings of rail journeys and comparative pricing of rail journeys for that to change.

In most instances, my journey by rail is one I (am lucky) that I can choose to make in spite of its extra cost or time penalty, rather than being unequivocally the best, fastest or cheapest way to make the journey.

Lumo will have to price it quite keenly to make any real dent in this market I feel. As one example - skyscanner will offer me £26 for a flight in 6 days time. The cheapest rail fare (involving the elongated via Edinburgh route) is £78, has me arriving in London 6 hours later. It seems more likely they will win market share by shaving costs for already rail inclined users, expecting a similar length journey time.

 

[bluenoxid]

I think what some are insinuating is that Lumo is watching the air market carefully to understand where potential passengers could be sourced from. If Lumo see that flights in a certain arrival slot are coming in at a premium, they might look at options to fulfil that perceived demand.

The skies might empty. Potentially Lumo might fill them as they offer more opportunities to travel, which proves/provides even more demand and money making opportunities for all travel modes