Labour policy on open access

[weeklycommuter]

From the following I conclude the just over one million passengers a year on Lumo's standard class only London Kings Cross to and from Edinburgh train services have switched from airlines, not from LNER. If the Government does not want open access passenger train services and new applications to run these, the Government should provide enough standard class seats with affordable fares, including affordable anytime and off peak fares, so everyone who needs to travel can do so on Government run train services. This includes new bimode trains with a lot more seats than the current rolling stock for CrossCountry Trains, an end to the LNER experiments and large reductions in the currently exorbitant anytime fares on long distance Government run train services including LNER, CrossCountry and Avanti to more affordable levels.

Fully Electric Rail Operator Lumo Marks First Anniversary with Two Key Achievements

Lumo has attracted one million passengers and seen rail overtake air travel as the preferred mode of transport between Edinburgh and London.

railway-news.com

Between April and August 2022, 57% of journeys between Edinburgh and London were by rail, compared to 35% during the same period in 2019.

 

[takno]

From the following I conclude the just over one million passengers a year on Lumo's standard class only London Kings Cross to and from Edinburgh train services have switched from airlines, not from LNER. If the Government does not want open access passenger train services and new applications to run these, the Government should provide enough standard class seats with affordable fares, including affordable anytime and off peak fares, so everyone who needs to travel can do so on Government run train services. This includes new bimode trains with a lot more seats than the current rolling stock for CrossCountry Trains, an end to the LNER experiments and large reductions in the currently exorbitant anytime fares on long distance Government run train services including LNER, CrossCountry and Avanti to more affordable levels.

While it may be a bit of a niche case, I know I'm not the only person who started getting Lumo instead of LNER because of the seats. In practice though a combination of the seats and the new fares mean that it's a straightforward choice for me between Lumo and air.

The Paignton service is appealing for the same reasons since I'm currently having to use the SWR route from Exeter.

Note in all these cases that I could easily be kept on GBR if the OA operation wasn't there, as long as they inherited and used the better stock, and don't disappear completely down LNER's scummy pricing rabbit hole.

 

[Meerkat]

The real question is how much the OA charges are going to be in future because if Network Grant and FTA are rolled up into a full recovery per train mile charge, which you cost spread over all passenger operations, no OA operations will be left running. Rail services don’t get anywhere near covering their fixed costs, whoever operates them.

Is that true for Intercity services? We are told Intercity made a profit, and OA are only running the services they want to - no obligation to run late trains etc
Lose OA and passengers will suffer as DfT price gouge the hell out of them.

 

[JonathanH]

We are told Intercity made a profit, and OA are only running the services they want to - no obligation to run late trains etc

Surely just an operational profit, and that with favourable attribution of infrastructure costs?

Lose OA and passengers will suffer as DfT price gouge the hell out of them.

Yes, the attraction to the DfT and Treasury is obvious.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Surely just an operational profit, and that with favourable attribution of infrastructure costs?


Yes, the attraction to the DfT and Treasury is obvious.

Presumably you're referring to the BR Inter City sector.
Infrastructure costs then were calculated on the basis of Prime User/Avoidable. This meant that on Inter City routes, IC was loaded with all infrastructure costs apart from the marginal or avoidable costs arising from other sectors using that infrastructure.
So yes, they were profitable and this calculation included all infrastructure costs.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The state-owned operator could run their own 'low-cost' airline style services as well, of course - see Spain and France for details. The latter even operates 'Ouigo Classique' loco-hauled services and 'Ouigo' TGV is taking over more and more of the full service 'inOui' trains.

 

[BlueLeanie]

what £20 Avanti fares are these?

If you've got access to them, they'll be detailed on your staff intranet.

 

[Meerkat]

The state-owned operator could run their own 'low-cost' airline style services as well, of course - see Spain and France for details. The latter even operates 'Ouigo Classique' loco-hauled services and 'Ouigo' TGV is taking over more and more of the full service 'inOui' trains.

They only run them to compete with the OA operators they were forced to admit - otherwise they would still be fleecing their punters.

 

[oldman]

From the following I conclude the just over one million passengers a year on Lumo's standard class only London Kings Cross to and from Edinburgh train services have switched from airlines, not from LNER.

This was a misleading press release, although it produced the desired effect in headlines. There was a reduction in business air travel post-pandemic (2022 compated to 2019) which affected air's market share. Much of this was due to fewer business trips overall rather than modal shift.

There may have been some modal shift from air but the press release does not demonstrate it. Without Lumo passengers might have driven, used other operators, used coaches or just not have travelled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They only run them to compete with the OA operators they were forced to admit - otherwise they would still be fleecing their punters.

Aside from Eurostar (both colours) SNCF doesn't strike me as unduly expensive. Inflexible maybe, but not fleecing.

 

[GrandCentral]

United demand for London trains to be protected and for LNER to revive axed service

Councillors on Wearside have made a united call to the Government to “protect” direct rail services between Sunderland and London.

www.sunderlandecho.com

A Labour Council expressing concerns around the future of Open Access, though the motion was launched by a Conservative Councillor

 

[JonathanH]

A Labour Council expressing concerns around the future of Open Access, though the motion was launched by a Conservative Councillor

Transferring the service to the government provided railway would be a valid way of "protecting" the service without the involvement of open access, and perhaps the way the Labour Council could approach this.

 

[Meerkat]

Transferring the service to the government provided railway would be a valid way of "protecting" the service without the involvement of open access, and perhaps the way the Labour Council could approach this.

Are the OA crewing/staffing arrangements conducive to GBR running them without becoming unviable? I assume as new set ups they have an efficient T&C set up.

 

[JonathanH]

Are the OA crewing/staffing arrangements conducive to GBR running them without becoming unviable? I assume as new set ups they have an efficient T&C set up.

Do they need to be?

Surely that depends whether the objective of a continued service to the Durham coast could be handled better as a marginal increase in work for the relevant GBR operation.

The important bit that the councillors will want to maintain is having direct services from the Durham Coast to York and London. Having them as part of an integrated operation could make the whole thing more robust.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are the OA crewing/staffing arrangements conducive to GBR running them without becoming unviable? I assume as new set ups they have an efficient T&C set up.

That’s not really an issue; TUPE would apply.

 

[stevieinselby]

Are the OA crewing/staffing arrangements conducive to GBR running them without becoming unviable? I assume as new set ups they have an efficient T&C set up.

Where they are providing a genuinely useful service and not just cherry picking and abstracting customers from other services, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be viable under GBR.

 

[camflyer]

Transferring the service to the government provided railway would be a valid way of "protecting" the service without the involvement of open access, and perhaps the way the Labour Council could approach this.

What confidence would we have that government run railways would be any more "protected" than any other public service?

 

[Meerkat]

That’s not really an issue; TUPE would apply.

But if you keep them separate and the same then what's the point of nationalising them?

 

[Bald Rick]

But if you keep them separate and the same then what's the point of nationalising them?

To make better use of the capacity, enable efficiency in resource utilisation, and repatriate the profit that goes to shareholders.

 

[Meerkat]

To make better use of the capacity, enable efficiency in resource utilisation, and repatriate the profit that goes to shareholders.

But difficult to do that if you have to maintain T&Cs, and fails if the OA T&Cs are more efficient.
Why take away profit from a railway company when we don’t do that to Tesco?

 

[takno]

But difficult to do that if you have to maintain T&Cs, and fails if the OA T&Cs are more efficient.
Why take away profit from a railway company when we don’t do that to Tesco?

The most obvious argument is that the government isn't providing Tesco with all its shops for a rent which is substantially below cost price. If track access was charged at genuine cost price none of the OA operators would be sustainable.

 

[Bald Rick]

But difficult to do that if you have to maintain T&Cs, and fails if the OA T&Cs are more efficient.

Not at all difficult.

 

[camflyer]

To make better use of the capacity, enable efficiency in resource utilisation, and repatriate the profit that goes to shareholders.

Often in the public sector "efficiency in resource utilisation" means cutting services.

 

[Bald Rick]

Often in the public sector "efficiency in resource utilisation" means cutting services.

maybe. However no open access would* make the ECML timetable easier to develop, and offer more seats on many key flows, more freight capacity, better journey times for many key flows, better performance, and better revenue (ie less Government support by us taxpayers).

What’s not to like?

*probably (if not certainly) in my opinion.

 

[paul1609]

Presumably you're referring to the BR Inter City sector.
Infrastructure costs then were calculated on the basis of Prime User/Avoidable. This meant that on Inter City routes, IC was loaded with all infrastructure costs apart from the marginal or avoidable costs arising from other sectors using that infrastructure.
So yes, they were profitable and this calculation included all infrastructure costs.

But even that required creative accounting. Gatwick Express a short airport shuttle was required to offset the losses of cross country and the mml
including a massive raid on the southern regions season ticket.income. If Gatwick Express had been allocated to Network Southeast Intercity would have been loss making. There was other route cherry picking as well.

 

[Dr Hoo]

maybe. However no open access would* make the ECML timetable easier to develop, and offer more seats on many key flows, more freight capacity, better journey times for many key flows, better performance, and better revenue (ie less Government support by us taxpayers).

What’s not to like?

*probably (if not certainly) in my opinion.

Clearly 'getting rid' of any train makes it theoretically easier to develop a timetable for the rest on a busy and complex route. Presumably the same logic would apply to any 'awkward' services operated by the future incarnations of LNER, Great Northern, Thameslink, East Midlands, CrossCountry, Northern, Transpennine and ScotRail along with a handful of freight companies together with unavoidable 'ancillary' moves like railhead treatment, track monitoring trains, on-track plant in transit, test runs and so forth.

Given that the open access operators broadly have 125mph stock that can pretty well match the fastest trains of LNER, CrossCountry and Transpennine they ought to be the easiest to fit round them, with relatively short headways. No doubt someone can point to calls at Grantham, Northallerton, Morpeth or wherever that make things a bit more complicated but unless these are to be unceremoniously dropped without replacement by a GBR operator I'm not clear what is gained. Or are these wayside halts not 'key flows'?

There is already rolling stock on order to allow for many OA trains to be lengthened to 10-cars and in any event many of the state operators run short trains over parts of the ECML too so I'm not clear where the 'more seats' are coming from either.

I am as keen to see the 75% growth target for freight met as anybody but it can hardly be argued that a long intermodal using a junction, entering or leaving a yard/terminal, or even reaching an absolute maximum speed of 75mph (power supply and affordability permitting) fits more easily with 125mph through intercity passenger services than OA. And there seems no likelihood that freight will be able to afford 'full' track access charges either.

 

[camflyer]

maybe. However no open access would* make the ECML timetable easier to develop, and offer more seats on many key flows, more freight capacity, better journey times for many key flows, better performance, and better revenue (ie less Government support by us taxpayers).

What’s not to like?

*probably (if not certainly) in my opinion.

What's not to like is that destinations which were underserved by other operators lose their services. Try telling the people of Sunderland that losing Grand Central was in the interests of "efficiency".

Just seems strange than while the rest of Europe is headed in the direction of OA rail we are going the other way to a monolithic state model.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that the open access operators broadly have 125mph stock that can pretty well match the fastest trains of LNER, CrossCountry and Transpennine they ought to be the easiest to fit round them, with relatively short headways. No doubt someone can point to calls at Grantham, Northallerton, Morpeth or wherever that make things a bit more complicated but unless these are to be unceremoniously dropped without replacement by a GBR operator I'm not clear what is gained. Or are these wayside halts not 'key flows'?

The issue is - as you say - the OA calling patterns which are (very carefully) designed to meet the revenue abstraction tests. This means that long non-stop runs on some sections of track and conversely stopping at some smaller stations to generate relatively small amounts of marginal (and new) revenue. Not helped when three different open access operators have different hours they run and different stations they are allowed to call at … and not allowed to call at.… in those hours. This makes it difficult to devise a standard repeatable timetable structure each hour, which is what you need to maximise throughput - for example to have standard freight paths, or standard fast paths London to Leeds or Edinburgh.

Without these restricitions on calling patterns you could run a similar number of trains in a more efficient pattern, with broadly the same number of calls at the stations concerned (give or take a few that are frankly nonsensical) but with less pathing time, and therefore quicker journeys.

There is already rolling stock on order to allow for many OA trains to be lengthened to 10-cars and in any event many of the state operators run short trains over parts of the ECML too so I'm not clear where the 'more seats' are coming from either.

That one is simple. Quicker journeys means more efficient use of rolling stock, means the same trains deliver more seat miles. As as is happening in December, but more would be possible.

 

[JonathanH]

Just seems strange than while the rest of Europe is headed in the direction of OA rail we are going the other way to a monolithic state model.

The monolithic state model allows proper planning of an integrated rail system though as there are only so many minutes in the hour.

Try telling the people of Sunderland that losing Grand Central was in the interests of "efficiency".

If the services to Sunderland were run by LNER as part of its core timetable, would the people of Sunderland have a problem with that?

 

[Bald Rick]

What's not to like is that destinations which were underserved by other operators lose their services. Try telling the people of Sunderland that losing Grand Central was in the interests of "efficiency".

Who said Sunderland would lose services?