Open Access, good or bad

[Old Hill Bank]

Should the rail network allow open access operators or should the franchised operators be contacted to cover these routes.

My view is that if there is a need it should be in the Service Level Commitment of the TOC.

 

[DownSouth]

But what about when both the franchisors (various regional and national government authorities) and franchisees (train operators) have done a poor job of understanding the potential markets? That's when open access operators have their role.

Perhaps there should be a process for recognising where an open access operator has succeeded in opening a new market and rewarding them with a 10 year franchise with competition protection to keep operating their route/s as a proper regulated operator. Operators which take bigger risks should be recognised with bigger rewards!

 

[Carlisle]

That sounds like a very good idea that I would like to see , but I just can't imagine anything like that happening in the near future ,I fear that in the vast majority of cases the start up and running costs for new train services will simply prove to be too high without some form of revenue support or subsidy from somewhere certainly in the short term whilst the service gets established

 

[DownSouth]

That sounds like a very good idea that I would like to see , but I just can't imagine anything like that happening in the near future

What about the current open access operators which seem to be fairly well established now? Wouldn't they be appropriate for conversion into a franchise so their passengers could enjoy some level of security instead of having to assume there will come a day when the trains will vanish.

 

[Muzer]

Are either of them actually making any money right now?

 

[ainsworth74]

Are either of them actually making any money right now?

Hull Trains are at least breaking even and I think have had a few years of profit at this point. Certainly their finances are good enough that they keep trying to get a scheme off the ground to get wires to Hull. Grand Central's Sunderland route is in profit but Bradford is losing money so that the operation as a whole is loss making but slowly improving towards profit.

 

[TheWalrus]

I'm all for open-access as the operators identify and cater for small markets to make a profit rather than relying on millions of pounds of taxpayer funds. They also provide competition on larger flows which should be a major benefit of a privatised system. Another benefit is increased private investment into the railway, such as Hull electrification and the Alliance Rail proposal, whatever your views may be on how realistic their proposals are.

 

[Fincra5]

I'd quite like the idea of Open Access Brighton-Manchester/B'Ham to give a rebirth to the loss of the Cross Country service.
OR a joint Southern (TSGN)/ & Virgin Operation via Olympia.

 

[route:oxford]

Should the rail network allow open access operators or should the franchised operators be contacted to cover these routes.

My view is that if there is a need it should be in the Service Level Commitment of the TOC.

Depends on how you define "need"...

Is "The Jacobite" a necessary service?

 

[generalvegitable]

IMO the franchised operators should just do the local/regional work, and provide at least a basic service over the whole network, and have the intercity network based on the open access principle. I believe that this could create a much further reaching intercity network with some REAL competition.

 

[Hartington]

Good, no hestitation. In my view there needs to be more competition on the network. On any route where there is more than one train per hour the paths should be split between 2 operators so we get a choice. Yes, that probably means less fare flexibility but in return I expect better "service".

 

[TheWalrus]

Are either of them actually making any money right now?

Hull Trains are at least breaking even and I think have had a few years of profit at this point. Certainly their finances are good enough that they keep trying to get a scheme off the ground to get wires to Hull. Grand Central's Sunderland route is in profit but Bradford is losing money so that the operation as a whole is loss making but slowly improving towards profit.

How did you find out this information?

I'm sure Bradford will make money in a few years time.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm all for open-access as the operators identify and cater for small markets to make a profit rather than relying on millions of pounds of taxpayer funds.

Except they do rely on millions of pounds of taxpayer funds. Because unlike franchised operators, they do not pay a share of the fixed costs of the infrastructure asset, and only pay the marginal avoidable cost.

If the full cost of operating, maintaining and renewing the ECML south of Doncaster was shared on a per path basis between those who use the paths, open access wouldn't happen. (Neither would freight, but that's another story).

 

[wensley]

How did you find out this information?

I was wondering that!

I think FHT and GC have proven something - small, stretched fleets providing a good service (with some of the best passenger satisfaction ratings in the country), whilst competing alongside a large, subsidise franchise like EC. As long as access to the network is managed effectively I think Open Access has a part to play going forward.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Except they do rely on millions of pounds of taxpayer funds. Because unlike franchised operators, they do not pay a share of the fixed costs of the infrastructure asset, and only pay the marginal avoidable cost.

If the full cost of operating, maintaining and renewing the ECML south of Doncaster was shared on a per path basis between those who use the paths, open access wouldn't happen. (Neither would freight, but that's another story).

As you suggest, the Open Access operators are not paying their full way and more than that, my understanding is that through ORCATS, they are abstracting some of the revenues of the TOC's.

If there was proper open competition it might be another matter, but the Open Access operators are simply leeching of the system. This is not open competition as some people seem to think.

 

[yorksrob]

It's certainly an interesting question.

To an extent, open access possibly doesn't entirely pay its own way (is this the only sector I wonder, thinking of railfreight, vis a vis the regional railway for example). It certanly seems likely that open access is being subsidised by other parts of the railway to an extent.

Yet as someone who is in a position to enjoy the full fruits of competition from open access, I have to say that the presence of open access has improved the overall offering on the ECML considerably (which isn't to denigrate the franchised operator which is also a pretty good element of the choice).

It's also worth considering whether a franchised operator would have had the motivation to improve services to places like Hull, Bradford and Sunderland to the extent that open access has.

In short, there is undoubtedly a cost to the wider railway and public from open access. However, at least the benefits are plain to see, much more so than in the case of other costs introduced at privatisation, the benefits of which are somewhat more opaque.

 

[ainsworth74]

How did you find out this information?

Information linked on the forum from other website. Press releases and such like.

 

[talltim]

Isn't opportunity for open access a legal requirement?

 

[cgcenet]

Good, no hestitation. In my view there needs to be more competition on the network. On any route where there is more than one train per hour the paths should be split between 2 operators so we get a choice. Yes, that probably means less fare flexibility but in return I expect better "service".

For many travellers fare flexibility is the thing that matters. As a season-ticket-holding commuter I just want to arrive at my local station in the morning and get on board the next train. I don't want have to wait for the one after because I have a season ticket for a different operator. I don't care if the train is painted blue/yellow or green/orange. I don't care if it has blue 2+3 or orange 3+3 seats [I'll probably be standing anyway]. I just want the train to get me to my place of work quickly without fuss.

OK so maybe you didn't mean commuter routes. But commuters use long-distance services as well, as these are an integral part of the rail service. What I wrote above applies equally if commuting to London from Swindon as from Kingston or Watford.

Likewise, if I wanted to do a one-off journey from Swindon to London today, I just want to go to the ticket office, buy a ticket and get on the next train. And if it's a return ticket, I want to travel back to Swindon on any train, not be bothered about which operator I have to use.

But why are there 4 or 5 trains per hour between Swindon and London? Because west of Swindon they split off in different directions. Having Paddington-Bristol via Bath and Paddington–Cardiff served by different operators might make for competition on the London–Swindon route, but it would not be good for an integrated rail network in the West of the UK.

Or consider London–Manchester. There are 3 fast trains per hour on this route, so you could ask why can't they be run by 3 operators? Well, their stopping patterns are different, so they complement each other; as a London–Manchester passenger I don't want to care about this, I just want to be able to get on the next train from Euston that will get me to Manchester.

As for the effect on through ticketing... you can see what happens by considering how difficult it is to through-ticket flexibly on any journey that involves the Brussels–Cologne route (where there are two operators with completely separate ticketing).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IMO the franchised operators should just do the local/regional work, and provide at least a basic service over the whole network, and have the intercity network based on the open access principle. I believe that this could create a much further reaching intercity network with some REAL competition.

But most inter-city trains carry some local/regional/commuter passengers (look at Swindon/Reading–London). The inter-city trains complement the regional stoppers. What you suggest would take away the integration between these types of service.

 

[alwaystouchout]

The bottom line is surely whether you want a genuinely competitive rail industry where the least profitable routes are left asunder, or a model where the government specifies services and tenders private firms to essentially operate route monopolies. I don't think we've seen the dawn of the open access operators that were predicted around the time of privatisation.

As long as I have a ticket which means I can use any operator's services, I don't mind who operates them - which begs questions about whether BR could have in effect been privatised as British Rail plc.

 

[cjmillsnun]

As long as I have a ticket which means I can use any operator's services, I don't mind who operates them - which begs questions about whether BR could have in effect been privatised as British Rail plc.

Of course it could've been and should've been. Or privatised as Network SouthEast PLC, Intercity PLC, etc (although it is unlikely that Regional Railways would've survived without significant subsidy).

Competition happens as there are long distance coaches and budget domestic airlines and open access operators could've been allowed on the rails by having British Rail Infrastructure as a cost centre (which would've complied with EU 91/440)

The cost advantages would've been greater as well. However the franchise system won the day despite it being the worst solution possible.

 

[westv]

If I'm quick enough I can usually get my HT Monday morning peak time tickets from Hull to London for £10. EC cheapest are normally £45 or so. That's about £1,600 cheaper a year for me. I say Open Access is good.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course it could've been and should've been. Or privatised as Network SouthEast PLC, Intercity PLC, etc (although it is unlikely that Regional Railways would've survived without significant subsidy).

Competition happens as there are long distance coaches and budget domestic airlines and open access operators could've been allowed on the rails by having British Rail Infrastructure as a cost centre (which would've complied with EU 91/440)

Indeed. It would have been interesting to see how open access operators might have competed with InterCity PLC. I dare say it would have risen to the challenge.

That said, I'm still squeamish about the whole separation between track and train and the way costs/access charges are allocated.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

All a case of finding "niche markets" - Hull Trains an overall success - though helped in start up by a benign ORR , and dare I say it - "free units" paid for as part of the original Anglia franchise.....(class 170 units to begin with)

No critiscism - done much good ......

 

[LateThanNever]

It's certainly an interesting question.

To an extent, open access possibly doesn't entirely pay its own way (is this the only sector I wonder, thinking of railfreight, vis a vis the regional railway for example). It certanly seems likely that open access is being subsidised by other parts of the railway to an extent.

Yet as someone who is in a position to enjoy the full fruits of competition from open access, I have to say that the presence of open access has improved the overall offering on the ECML considerably (which isn't to denigrate the franchised operator which is also a pretty good element of the choice).

It's also worth considering whether a franchised operator would have had the motivation to improve services to places like Hull, Bradford and Sunderland to the extent that open access has.

In short, there is undoubtedly a cost to the wider railway and public from open access. However, at least the benefits are plain to see, much more so than in the case of other costs introduced at privatisation, the benefits of which are somewhat more opaque.

Quite. I think that Open access operators are probably the ONLY benefits of privatisation. The horrendous additional costs of doing everything else are probably the quid pro quo and I'm not sure it's a fair swop!

 

[Suraggu]

I believe Open access has been crucial for stimulating growth and increasing competition to the franchised operators.

Working for East Coast I have seen the North East -London market having a increase in competitive Advance ticket fares to compete with Grand Central. I think its extremely healthy.

 

[Carlisle]

All a case of finding "niche markets" - Hull Trains an overall success - though helped in start up by a benign ORR , and dare I say it - "free units" paid for as part of the original Anglia franchise.....(class 170 units to begin with)

No critiscism - done much good ......

Also didn't BR and possibly it's predecessors run several return trains a day anyway for many years on the London-Hull route before axing them in the lead up to privatisation , so latent demand for Hull Trains services will have surely been a well known opportunity as opposed to more innovative but financially risky completely new service patterns proposed in some areas that probably in many cases will never leave the drawing board

 

[87019Chris]

As you suggest, the Open Access operators are not paying their full way and more than that, my understanding is that through ORCATS, they are abstracting some of the revenues of the TOC's.

If there was proper open competition it might be another matter, but the Open Access operators are simply leeching of the system. This is not open competition as some people seem to think.

Although they do leech as you call it from the TOC's don't the TOC's leech from the government in the first place, and the Open Access Providers provide extra services from the likes of Doncaster & York with quicker journey times as well as providing small places with direct London train such as Halifax, Brighouse, Hartlepool, Brough, Howden and Northallerton? Surely this is a good thing as connecting to London in this day and age is vital for business and for people seeing relatives that live down there or up here? Also GC keep a track of how many people are traveling on there Bradford Services as I have seen staff counting numbers on the trains the purpose of this I'm not sure if they send the numbers to ORCATS I'm not sure. However when ever I'm on the services they seem busy and people are choosing to travel GC from Doncaster due to there Cheap Fares and Quicker Journey times south of Doncaster I would guess?

 

[alwaystouchout]

That said, I'm still squeamish about the whole separation between track and train and the way costs/access charges are allocated.

Even if BR was privatised as a single entity, wouldn't passenger services still have to be split from infrastructure operations under EU rules?

 

[talltim]

I believe a lot the EU rules on separation of infrastructure and operations were based on the UK privatisation. However they can be managed by the same company (most other European countries, for example) , but need to be separate operations and access has to provided to other operators.