Open Access on the GWML

[TinyTim89]

But it is struggling, as GC admit in their application to run a service via Leeds. Loading isn't a particularly good indicator of whether a service is making money or not.

But in the application the service will still call at the usual points (brighouse, halifax, bradford) before going via Leeds, so although it will be going a different route, they will still be serving the markets they set out to serve, must be positive if they want to run more trains on that route otherwise they'd be looking to cut back.....

 

[Wath Yard]

In their application they state the new service will:

... supplement and safeguard the existing three daily return services operated by Grand Central.

Which means the current ones aren't making any money and they need the Leeds revenue to keep it going in the long term.

They also state:

Grand Central’s current three Bradford return services have had a difficult introduction, partly due to poor rolling stock availability, but mainly due to very long journey times to the main market of Bradford.

 

[GNERman]

In their application they state the new service will:

... supplement and safeguard the existing three daily return services operated by Grand Central.

Which means the current ones aren't making any money and they need the Leeds revenue to keep it going in the long term.

They also state:

Grand Central’s current three Bradford return services have had a difficult introduction, partly due to poor rolling stock availability, but mainly due to very long journey times to the main market of Bradford.

Which is why running via Leeds and Garforth was to occur, to speed up the services, as it also states in their application...

 

[Wath Yard]

Which completely proves the point I was making that passengers don't want to travel on circuitous routes that take forever.

 

[GNERman]

Which completely proves the point I was making that passengers don't want to travel on circuitous routes that take forever.

Obviously, which passengers wouldn't want to travel on the faster service, but just because they want to send one service (albeit now withdrawn) via this route, it doesn't mean that the current services are failing. Anyway, why wouldn't GC want to stop at Leeds, it gives "some competition", as it states, and allows them to appeal to more passengers, whether this is through ORCATS or their own tickets. What kind of OAO doesn't take advantage of ORCATS? Its common practice...

 

[TinyTim89]

Which completely proves the point I was making that passengers don't want to travel on circuitous routes that take forever.

i think the increasing number of passengers that travel to/from bradford, halifax and brighouse would disagree with that, plus to/from halifax and brighouse GC are actually quicker than going the 'traditional' route via leeds

 

[Wath Yard]

Obviously, which passengers wouldn't want to travel on the faster service, but just because they want to send one service (albeit now withdrawn) via this route, it doesn't mean that the current services are failing. Anyway, why wouldn't GC want to stop at Leeds, it gives "some competition", as it states, and allows them to appeal to more passengers, whether this is through ORCATS or their own tickets. What kind of OAO doesn't take advantage of ORCATS? Its common practice...

They have admitted they are struggling. I have posted their exact words on this thread! I'm sure GC would want to serve Leeds. I'm sure they would want to only serve Leeds - not going to happen though.

i think the increasing number of passengers that travel to/from bradford, halifax and brighouse would disagree with that, plus to/from halifax and brighouse GC are actually quicker than going the 'traditional' route via leeds

What you think, and what is a fact admitted by the operator, are two different things. I have already explained that just because a few people travel on a service doesn't mean it makes money. The main markets in West Yorkshire are Leeds by a mile, and then lagging far behind Bradford, Huddersfield and Wakefield; not Brighouse.

 

[TinyTim89]

What you think, and what is a fact admitted by the operator, are two different things. I have already explained that just because a few people travel on a service doesn't mean it makes money. The main markets in West Yorkshire are Leeds by a mile, and then lagging far behind Bradford, Huddersfield and Wakefield; not Brighouse.

Brighouse is there to cater for the Huddersfield market (as is the new stop at Mirfield which is nicely picking up patronage) as it says on a lot of their literature 'Brighouse for Huddersfield',

I do agree with you that passenger numbers are not an indicator of profitablility but the services are in a much stronger position than they were 12 months ago, simply because trains that were very lightly used are now running at a much higher capacity and if you look at the amount the ticket prices were reduced by, the increase in passenger numbers substantially offsets that, maybe not enough to make the service profitable, but at least gives it a fighting chance!

 

[GNERman]

They have admitted they are struggling. I have posted their exact words on this thread! I'm sure GC would want to serve Leeds. I'm sure they would want to only serve Leeds - not going to happen though.

I welcome you providing this quote. I'm eagerly awaiting it...

 

[Bald Rick]

Back on topic, we already do have Open Access on the GWML, doing very nicely. Although I'm sure they'd let you buy some paths into Paddington if the price was right. #heathrowexpress

 

[Tiny Tim]

This thread seems rather desperate; Finding potential Open Access routes around the GWML is evidently not an easy task. The only routes mentioned so far that would stand a chance of being approved would be too circuitous and be obliged to miss out important stations. They would certainly not be profitable, which in itself is a reason for the ORR to turn them down.

At the risk of straying onto another thread's territory, the whole Open Access idea is flawed. Franchises have to be protected, it's why TOCs want them, so the idea of there being any genuine open access is impossible. That's not to say that there aren't opportunities to provide a few additional services, but the potential is limited. Open access is really just a cosmetic 'free market' gloss applied by politicians, leaving the semi-monopolistic TOCs to get on with running trains. Getting open access operators to run the less attractive trains serves to portray the privatised railway as being competitive, whilst actually protecting the uncompetitive franchise holders from risk. It's a pretty rubbish way to run a railway.

 

[tsr]

Back on topic, we already do have Open Access on the GWML, doing very nicely. Although I'm sure they'd let you buy some paths into Paddington if the price was right. #heathrowexpress

To be fair, Paddington is not the only access point to the GWML.

We all know that a perfectly viable set of services can be operated without depending on custom to/from central London. Nice as this market would be, it is bordering on being served to capacity in many geographical directions, and you may not ever see the ORR allowing extra services into Paddington itself.

On the other hand, there are missing links between the South-East and the South-West, without resorting to services along the South Coast, many of which are slow and already well-used. I feel that potential customers are being missed out here. In fact, I feel that a fairly high number of passengers could be served by new "Intercity" style services in the South-East.

Not everybody in the South-East wants to travel via London, which is perhaps overlooked. Also, not every passenger wants to travel on a slow suburban-style train service!

Just a thought.

 

[Ivo]

Obviously a link would need to be built in Farnborough, which I appreciate would be difficult, but would there perhaps be a case for revising the Bristol - Waterloo route to run something like Cardiff - Dover (via the North Downs line)? I feel that this is pretty much the closest we can get to a decent GW OAO - even though it only uses the GWML for ~13½ miles. (Not including Swindon to Didcot/Oxford as already proposed.)

 

[tbtc]

We all know that a perfectly viable set of services can be operated without depending on custom to/from central London

Is there really a gap in the market for an Open Access company to run a profitable service anywhere in the UK that doesn't involve London (and isn't primarily abstractive of existing services)?

I'm not sure...

 

[tsr]

Is there really a gap in the market for an Open Access company to run a profitable service anywhere in the UK that doesn't involve London (and isn't primarily abstractive of existing services)?

I'm not sure...

I'm thinking of an Open Access CrossCountry-type company (i.e. CrossCountry serves important towns and cities but avoids London), but for the South and especially the South-East, which already has a high proportion of its services running to/from London.

 

[LexyBoy]

I'm thinking of an Open Access CrossCountry-type company (i.e. CrossCountry serves important towns and cities but avoids London), but for the South and especially the South-East, which already has a high proportion of its services running to/from London.

That would be great, and I'm sure there is demand, but isn't the problem the fact that the network is already chokka with suburban/local services, meaning that there's no opportunity to path fast, non-stop trains? Wasn't that the part of the problem with VXC/AXC services down to Brighton?

 

[tbtc]

We all know that a perfectly viable set of services can be operated without depending on custom to/from central London

Is there really a gap in the market for an Open Access company to run a profitable service anywhere in the UK that doesn't involve London (and isn't primarily abstractive of existing services)?

I'm not sure...

I'm thinking of an Open Access CrossCountry-type company (i.e. CrossCountry serves important towns and cities but avoids London), but for the South and especially the South-East, which already has a high proportion of its services running to/from London.

Sounds nice, but where though?

SWT pulled their Brighton to Reading service, neither FGW or SWT stepped in to replace the XC services from Reading to Portsmouth/ Brighton, same with the old XC service to Kent (Ramsgate?) - there seems to be no TOC interested in running middle/longer distance services in the south east that don't involve Greater London which suggests that there's no market for profitable services there.

 

[tsr]

That would be great, and I'm sure there is demand, but isn't the problem the fact that the network is already chokka with suburban/local services, meaning that there's no opportunity to path fast, non-stop trains? Wasn't that the part of the problem with VXC/AXC services down to Brighton?

Yes, it was. I suppose I'm not saying that it's entirely possible (or likely) but that it would probably be viable in terms of passenger numbers.

I'm going a bit too far into the realms of fantasy here, but BML2 (Uckfield-Lewes) might be able to take some services off the BML, thereby freeing up a bit of capacity. After that, you'd probably want a South<->West chord at Edenbridge. A flyover (or diveunder) at Redhill to carry East<->West services would then be a good plan, with latitudinal platforms. That would allow easier running of cross-country services into Kent via Tonbridge.

Penzance-Dover, anyone?

Sounds nice, but where though?

SWT pulled their Brighton to Reading service, neither FGW or SWT stepped in to replace the XC services from Reading to Portsmouth/ Brighton, same with the old XC service to Kent (Ramsgate?) - there seems to be no TOC interested in running middle/longer distance services in the south east that don't involve Greater London which suggests that there's no market for profitable services there.

You have raised some quite interesting points.

I think the problem is that the TOCs think everyone wants to go via London. This is emphatically not the case. Thameslink and WLL services do help a lot, but I would say the links between the South-East and the South-West are too tenuous.

With more and more people using the railways in the South-East of England, there is probably now a market for direct, fast services to the South-West. Unfortunately, the routes and paths of some of the services before were very slow indeed, which led to a reputation that was hard to shake off. Perhaps destinations such as Ramsgate didn't allow the service to be viable, because a great enough number of population centres was not covered (but that's just my speculation).

I have no idea exactly how to increase paths, but I have listed a couple of infrastructural improvements above.

 

[tbtc]

You have raised some quite interesting points.

I think the problem is that the TOCs think everyone wants to go via London. This is emphatically not the case. Thameslink and WLL services do help a lot, but I would say the links between the South-East and the South-West are too tenuous.

With more and more people using the railways in the South-East of England, there is probably now a market for direct, fast services to the South-West. Unfortunately, the routes and paths of some of the services before were very slow indeed, which led to a reputation that was hard to shake off. Perhaps destinations such as Ramsgate didn't allow the service to be viable, because a great enough number of population centres was not covered (but that's just my speculation).

I have no idea exactly how to increase paths, but I have listed a couple of infrastructural improvements above.

There are other withdrawn routes like the Wales & West/ Wessex service from Cornwall to Portsmouth/Brighton - FGW haven't tried to re-introduce this (despite getting a decent number of additional 150s from LM/LO).

I've suggested links like Brighton/Portsmouth to Reading before on here, but it looks increasingly like TOCs don't see enough of a market to make any money (certainly not in the first few years of operation, and short-term TOCs can't see much beyond that).

Also worth mentioning, the Anglia service from Ipswich to Basingstoke was a nice idea but didn't make anything like enough of a dint in the market (compared to running additinoal Ipswich - London and London - Basingstoke services).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There are other withdrawn routes like the Wales & West/ Wessex service from Cornwall to Portsmouth/Brighton - FGW haven't tried to re-introduce this (despite getting a decent number of additional 150s from LM/LO).

The additional sets were required to put right the shortfall caused by the original franchise specification , where considerable crowding resulted in several areas , not least Bath -Bristol. _

I've suggested links like Brighton/Portsmouth to Reading before on here, but it looks increasingly like TOCs don't see enough of a market to make any money (certainly not in the first few years of operation, and short-term TOCs can't see much beyond that).

Also worth mentioning, the Anglia service from Ipswich to Basingstoke was a nice idea but didn't make anything like enough of a dint in the market (compared to running additinoal Ipswich - London and London - Basingstoke services).

The Anglia service was heavily subsidised by the SRA under the Rail Partnership programme - and whilst it was a good idea (and the SRA was happy to take a chance with it) , a combination of poor paths and extended journey times , post Hatfield speed restrictions and a superior journey option via London and a tube transfer , meant that loadings were very poor , and the units were redeployed onto better service options. In my opinion , it hsoudl have been terminated earlier than it did.

 

[Zoe]

There are other withdrawn routes like the Wales & West/ Wessex service from Cornwall to Portsmouth/Brighton - FGW haven't tried to re-introduce this (despite getting a decent number of additional 150s from LM/LO).

There were also direct services from Penzance to Cardiff at one time.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There were also direct services Penzance to Cardiff at one time.

There were , but many of the Wales and West "oddities" were operational linked through services to squeeze productivity out of the units and to balance them back for maintenance at Cardiff Canton. Often one - off journeys , but nonetheless they had some genuine users (e.g Carmarthen to Brighton via Portsmouth , the oft quoted Treherbet to Lostwithiel in one direction etc)

Portsmouth - Plymouth certainly had some merit , and back in BR days there was a regular(ish) Brighton - Salisbury - Plymouth.

 

[TEW]

There were also direct services Penzance to Cardiff at one time.

Still is, but only one direction. The 0600 Penzance-Exeter St Davids and 0933 Exeter St Davids-Cardiff Central were combined in to one train at the last timetable change. There are a couple of early morning Bristol-Penzance trains to position units for the day as well.

 

[D1009]

Still is, but only one direction. The 0600 Penzance-Exeter St Davids and 0933 Exeter St Davids-Cardiff Central were combined in to one train at the last timetable change.

And to travel on it throughout would justify some sort of endurance award ! Didn't there used to be a 153 that went through from Penzance to Haverfordwest, being attached and detached from other trains en route ?

 

[TEW]

You get a couple of people using it Cornwall-Bristol and Cardiff because FGW offer AP on it and its cheaper than AP on XC.

Penzance-Manchester Piccadilly and Milford Haven I believe. 158 to Manchester and 153 to Milford Haven, can't remember where it divided but have a feeling it could have been Bristol with the Manchester portion avoiding Newport.

 

[Zoe]

There was also a Plymouth or Penzance to Birmingham New Street service operated by Wales & West using a 158 at one time.

 

[TEW]

The Summer 2001 Wales and West timetable I have lists the following long distance services they operated over the Marches line:
0753 Manchester Piccadilly-London Waterloo via Shrewsbury, Bristol Temple Meads and Salisbury
1517 London Waterloo-Manchester Piccadilly via Salisbury, Bristol Temple Meads and Shrewsbury
1101 Manchester Piccadilly-Penzance via Shrewsbury and Bristol Temple Meads
0652 Penzance-Manchester Piccadilly via Bristol Temple Meads and Hereford
1300 Liverpool Lime Street-Portsmouth Harbour via Shrewsbury and Bristol Temple Meads
0600 Portsmouth Harbour-Liverpool Lime Street via Bristol Temple Meads and Shrewsbury

Then there was the 0750 Penzance-Portsmouth Harbour via Westbury and 1424 Portsmouth Harbour-Penzance via Westbury.

All those services had a dedicated page at the start of the timetable book advertising them. The following services are all the odd ones I could find listed in the standard pages of the Cornwall timetable booklet:
0500ish London Waterloo-Penzance via Reading(0600) and Bristol Temple Meads (Not Mondays)
0800 Cardiff Central-Penzance via Paignton
0900ish Pontypridd-Par via Cardiff Central(1000)
1100 Cardiff Central-Penzance
2030 Exeter St Davids-Falmouth Docks (Fridays only)
0710 Par-Exeter St Davids via Paignton
1012 Penzance-Cardiff Central
1140 Penzance-Cardiff Central
1226 Penzance-Birmingham New Street
1320 Penzance-Exeter St Davids via Paignton
1432 Newquay-Cardiff Central
1450 Penzance-Cardiff Central (Looped the service from Newquay at Taunton)
1630 Penzance-Birmingham New Street