Labour policy on open access

[geoffk]

I do think there's a difference between the existing open access service groups, which provide good links to marginalised areas (or offer a service level differentiation for the Anglo-Scot market), and some of the newer applications which seem more like a cash grab.

Doesn't it make sense to hold off allowing any more OAs until GBR is up and running?

 

[JonathanH]

So which operator does make a full contribution?

In my view, this has the opportunity to go terribly wrong. If the bar is raised too high for major companies to operate OA services, what happens to The Jacobite, The Scarborough extension, the Belmond and similar that bring £MMs into the tourist economy?

Find some way of exempting operators who only operate 50 days from the extra charges?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Which new ones do you have in mind? Locations like Rochdale, Worksop, Cumbernauld, Gowerton (or more services to places like Pontefract) seem to be comparatively marginal compared to (say) Edinburgh.

The local operations proposed for Taunton, Frome, Melksham and so on hardly seem like a cash grab either.

Branson's for a start. He has even suggested his plans would include taking over some services currently operated by Avanti. The ones which generate most revenue, no doubt.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Branson's for a start. He has even suggested his plans would include taking over some services currently operated by Avanti. The ones which generate most revenue, no doubt.

Hang on WCML is saturated now allegedly so how ORR will be able to consent to any additional paths is beyond me.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hang on WCML is saturated now allegedly so how ORR will be able to consent to any additional paths is beyond me.

And the ECML…

 

[The Planner]

Branson's for a start. He has even suggested his plans would include taking over some services currently operated by Avanti. The ones which generate most revenue, no doubt.

Hang on WCML is saturated now allegedly so how ORR will be able to consent to any additional paths is beyond me.

The answer to your question is above in Bransons assumptions.

 

[HSTEd]

So which operator does make a full contribution?

In my view, this has the opportunity to go terribly wrong. If the bar is raised too high for major companies to operate OA services, what happens to The Jacobite, The Scarborough extension, the Belmond and similar that bring £MMs into the tourist economy?

If the Jacobite is deemed to be in the public interest for tourism enhancement, the state could provide them with subsidies to sustain their operations.

 

[JonathanH]

If the Jacobite is deemed to be in the public interest for tourism enhancement, the state could provide them with subsidies to sustain their operations.

In other words, exempt them from the higher charges that could be applied for other open access operators?

Could there be grounds to do so on the basis that ScotRail don't need to run extra services between Fort William and Mallaig?

 

[showchaser]

So which operator does make a full contribution?

In my view, this has the opportunity to go terribly wrong. If the bar is raised too high for major companies to operate OA services, what happens to The Jacobite, The Scarborough extension, the Belmond and similar that bring £MMs into the tourist economy?

Central government in Britain have long made commercially destructive decisions on a whim, despite sensible warnings, and then ever-so-clunkily walked back their sweeping changes several years later—to a devastated market.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Branson's for a start. He has even suggested his plans would include taking over some services currently operated by Avanti. The ones which generate most revenue, no doubt.

Hang on WCML is saturated now allegedly so how ORR will be able to consent to any additional paths is beyond me.

The answer to your question is above in Bransons assumptions.

Does this refer to the following?

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-08/virgin-management-limited-s17-form-p.pdf

Consideration has also been given to our understanding that following paths are not currently being fully utilised by the respective operator:
Avanti West Coast: Euston to Liverpool.
Avanti West Coast: Euston to Birmingham New Street.
Northern: via the Castlefield Corridor.
TransPennine Express: via the Castlefield Corridor.

 

[HSTEd]

In other words, exempt them from the higher charges that could be applied for other open access operators?

Could there be grounds to do so on the basis that ScotRail don't need to run extra services between Fort William and Mallaig?

Well the government would likely have to tender with the relevant bodies to run these services.

But given that the people who run the Jacobite (or similar services) are in possession of all the equipment, I would expect the tender to be a formality.

 

[The Planner]

Does this refer to the following?

Yes. All Avanti have to do is run all their services and that bid is somewhat speculative at best.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Find some way of exempting operators who only operate 50 days from the extra charges?

The Jacobite operates from approximately the Scottish Easter Holidays to the English October holidays. So that's potentially first Monday in April to first Friday in November - depending on how they fall. So that's 7 months.

Make the exemption 7 months to fit in with the Jacobite, and the obvious things (as an example) to do is create two OA companies.

Motherwell Trains Limited (Summer Timetable)
Milton Keynes Trains Limited (Winter Timetable)

Then a few more.
M Trains ticketing Limited
M Trains leasing Limited
M Trains staffing Limited

The customer just sees the seamless front end service and doesn't care that it's a special arrangement in line with legislation.

For every rule that local or national government create, there's a whole team of lawyers, accountants and so forth ready and willing to work to those rules.

This in turn means the civil service (and in other circumstances local Government) need to recruit lots of people and external lawyers and consultants to understand how the corporate organisations have interpreted the law.

To be honest, I think there's a lot more that the Government should be focussing on delivery with the services they are responsible for without trying to shut down private services or move a £Bn of leasing liabilities from the private sector to the state's books to run them themselves.

 

[Class 170101]

The Government didn’t “allow” the ORR to approve any OA applications - they don’t presently have any legal powers to allow or disallow applications. The ORR is currently the only body that can determine applications.

There is a view amongst some at the DfT that if OA can’t pay increased access charges, then they could be transferred (by “agreement”) to GBR rather than just cease. How much political support there is for that, we will see.

But the Government can remove funding for infrastructure projects, as they did on the ECML if my memory serves me correctly, if OA get paths ahead of 'government' operations.

What OA is demonstrating is apparent support for services in certain areas that the government hasn't yet / doesn't want to provide including Waterside line as mentioned above.

Insofar as the ECML is concerned. The Hull services would be a pain to provide on the ECML TT as extensions of ECML services so would probably stay.
However for Bradford / Halifax, Huddersfield and Harrogate services these could be provided off existing core Kings Cross to Leeds services (indeed some already are)
Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Scarborough off York services (do the York terminating services exist from Dec 25 I can't remember)
Stirling and Glasgow Central could be extensions of existing Edinburgh services.

 

[geoffk]

To be honest, I think there's a lot more that the Government should be focussing on delivery with the services they are responsible for without trying to shut down private services or move a £Bn of leasing liabilities from the private sector to the state's books to run them themselves.

This isn't about ideology, but the practical difficulty of finding paths for more fast passenger trains on already crowded main lines - trains which may add little to the overall rail offer and which may adversely effect the operation of local trains and freight, or inhibit their improvement. We've already seen that, a few years ago, local trains from Sheffield to Hull and Scunthorpe were cut at Doncaster to eliminate two paths an hour each way across the ECML, leading to increased journey times for those who now have to cross Doncaster station to and from the remote platform 0.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Stirling and Glasgow Central could be extensions of existing Edinburgh services.

LNER ended their daily extensions to Stirling and to Glasgow Central in the December 2024 timetable change.

https://www.lner.co.uk/globalassets/240325-report-on-lners-decrement-consultation.pdf

LNER proposed to remove two services per day to and from Glasgow Central and Stirling from its December 2024 Timetable. As a result, some existing services will start and terminate at different stations.

These LNER services are now being used by very few customers north / west of Edinburgh, particularly the early morning Stirling service and Glasgow Central service where there are already rail links provided by other train operators. The proposed changes will enable LNER to deliver a more efficient and reliable timetable of services for our customers now and into the future.
LNER would still call at Stirling as part of its daily service to and from Inverness. The decision to remove some direct services reflects the changes in travel patterns in recent years with more customers choosing to travel for leisure than business.

 

[Meerkat]

Am I overthinking it or is there a public debt angle to the OAs, as they maintain a semblance of a market for the leasing companies?
ie if the state becomes the only viable alternative for the leased stock (bar a desperate attempt to lease it abroad somewhere at much lower rates) would the leases become more of a PFI and liable to be reclassified as public debt?

 

[BlueLeanie]

This isn't about ideology, but the practical difficulty of finding paths for more fast passenger trains on already crowded main lines - trains which may add little to the overall rail offer and which may adversely effect the operation of local trains and freight, or inhibit their improvement. We've already seen that, a few years ago, local trains from Sheffield to Hull and Scunthorpe were cut at Doncaster to eliminate two paths an hour each way across the ECML, leading to increased journey times for those who now have to cross Doncaster station to and from the remote platform 0.

Then the answer isn't to cancel services, the answer is to build flying junctions to remove conflicting movements.

When Lumo run a fast train down the ECML from Scotland, they are taking 300 passengers away from BA, Ryanair & easyJet on each train.

Ryanair ran around 8 flights a day from Prestwick to Stansted (with Free ScotRail connection) before Virgin launched their Pendolino service. BA used to run twin aisle flights to Heathrow every hour from Glasgow (and in competition with BMI). The number of seats have dropped considerably.

The reality is the OpenAccess operators are primarily in competition with price conscious people who flew or took the bus to London from Scotland. Removing choice will simply put the back in the skies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When Lumo run a fast train down the ECML from Scotland, they are taking 300 passengers away from BA, Ryanair & easyJet on each train.

I bet they're taking plenty away from LNER too. Though I hate to think what LNER would charge without the competition, they really are a bunch of scroungers under the fare increase trial.

 

[vuzzeho]

I bet they're taking plenty away from LNER too. Though I hate to think what LNER would charge without the competition, they really are a bunch of scroungers under the fare increase trial.

With LNER's higher prices, a bunch of people who could've taken the train just wouldn't. Lumo probably does take people away from LNER, but it keeps them on the railway.

 

[BlueLeanie]

I bet they're taking plenty away from LNER too. Though I hate to think what LNER would charge without the competition, they really are a bunch of scroungers under the fare increase trial.

It's a bit off topic, but one of the key benefits to my other half working in the public sector is the £20 fares available on Avanti. They've definitely saved us a fortune on XC and LNER fares.

 

[Class 170101]

LNER ended their daily extensions to Stirling and to Glasgow Central in the December 2024 timetable change.

Correct but they weren't additional services on the core section of route from Edinburgh to London unlike OA operators

 

[Clarence Yard]

Doesn't it make sense to hold off allowing any more OAs until GBR is up and running?

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, it isn’t in either the DfT’s or ORR’s gift to do that at the moment. The law, as it stands, requires the ORR (& the ORR only) to make decisions on applications and their criteria to make those decisions are very clear.

Once the law is changed and, presumably, the access regime and charging methodology is changed as a result, then the current rules have to apply. The ORR will quickly find themselves in Court if they don’t follow them.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, it isn’t in either the DfT’s or ORR’s gift to do that at the moment. The law, as it stands, requires the ORR (& the ORR only) to make decisions on applications and their criteria to make those decisions are very clear.
Once the law is changed and, presumably, the access regime and charging methodology is changed as a result, then the current rules have to apply. The ORR will quickly find themselves in Court if they don’t follow them.

I assume that changes to the access regime will be part of the promised new bill to create Great British Railways and that has not even been drawn up yet. For the changes to take place this bill will have to complete the Parliamentary process and become an Act of Parliament. This will surely take a lot longer, be a lot more contentious and be the subject of many more amendments than the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. I cannot see any change to the access regime until 2027 at the earliest.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I assume that changes to the access regime will be part of the promised new bill to create Great British Railways and that has not even been drawn up yet. For the changes to take place this bill will have to complete the Parliamentary process and become an Act of Parliament. This will surely take a lot longer, be a lot more contentious and be the subject of many more amendments than the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. I cannot see any change to the access regime until 2027 at the earliest.

Yup going to take a few years to get into law but remember these track access applications are for 2-3 years time or more hence SoS heading it off at the pass now as it clear she sees they are making money at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

[43096]

Yup going to take a few years to get into law but remember these track access applications are for 2-3 years time or more hence SoS heading it off at the pass now as it clear she sees they are making money at the expense of the taxpayer.

And the very fact of the SoS making the Government's position clear, that is likely to put off at least some potential open access bidders as the uncertainty over future charging regimes won't be what their financiers want to hear.

 

[Elecman]

It's a bit off topic, but one of the key benefits to my other half working in the public sector is the £20 fares available on Avanti. They've definitely saved us a fortune on XC and LNER fares.

what £20 Avanti fares are these?

 

[Masbroughlad]

Everything revolves around money and profit. No chance of a service built around supporting society, communities, work and leisure travel? Sucking up that some services will never make profit.

Remember under BR, it was a passenger, freight, postal etc. service provider. A big buyer with big spending power.

Can the fragmented railway ever be brought back together? Too many companies providing too many functions. Too many profit centres.

I struggle to see what GBR really will be......

And bringing this back to OA. I don't really see how it fits in to the service model. GBR should provide the service, if people want and NEED it - regardless of passenger numbers. If OA operators can make it work, people want it. So, let GBR run them and take the money to subsidise socially necessary services.

Truly nationalised railways shouldn't need OAs, in fact, they should oppose them!

 

[Clarence Yard]

If GBR follows the Regional Model (which is what Peter Hendy wants), then all the balkanisation of the railway, which started with Sectorisation, will be reversed and it will be a culture shock to some. The railway will revert to very strong top down management structures ruthlessly focussed on delivery.

The forthcoming Act may not be effective straight away and the transitional arrangements will be interesting but if the ORR is removed from determining applications and the power to set charges goes to GBR, under a charging policy set by the DfT, then it will get tougher for OA.

OA is currently in a different market “segment” to state operators, charter operators and freight so you can be specific about OA charging without affecting Freight or Charters.

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.

 

[stevieinselby]

Reading that letter, some Open Access are more equal than others.

Which may be an entirely fair description of the reality. Hull Trains, and to a maybe slightly lesser extent Grand Central, provide a really important service that over the last 20 years has become integral to the network. The prospect of Hull and other northern towns and cities losing their regular trains to London would deter a lot of passengers and would put more strain on other local services. The same couldn't be said for Lumo or prospective cherry-picking services to Carmarthen or some of the other preposterous cases being proposed.