Open Access operators should start looking elswhere to serve

[Prestige15]

Back in the time when open access operators like Hull Tains was created providing a direct service to London, followed by Grand Central to Sunderland and Bradford, serving the areas far more frequently than the main TOC does. So far it looks like OAO is compeating TOC rather than looking other areas thats been crying out for a better link / direct london service for years.

A few routes I came up which I do believe will be welcomed, thought I would share it see what you all think:

1: (2x5car) London Euston - Watford Junction (pick up/drop off) - Preston - Front 5 car to Oxenholme and then all stations to Windermere, Rear 5 car to Carnforth - Barrow - Millom - Whitehaven - Workington - Maryport - Carlisle
This could also possibly provide the fastest way from London to Blackpool with a change at Preston.

2: London Euston - Tamworth - Litchfield - Winsford - Hartford - Warrington - Newton le Willows - Golborne (if opens) - St helens Central - Huyton - Liverpool.
This would provide a useful link between Winsford/Hartford to Warrington for the first time since London Midland stopped its Birmingham - Preston service years ago as well as a fast direct link to London. Huyton, St helens and Newton would also benefit with a direct London service without the need to change at Liverpool, Wigan or Warrington.

3: London St Pancras - Luton Airport parkway (pick up/drop off) - Ilkeston - Alfreton - New Mill Central - Marble - Guide Bridge (connection to Stalybridge and Manchester) - Roachdale - Todmorden - Burnley - Blackburn


4: Ashford International - Rye -Hastings - Eastborne - Lewis - Brighton - Hove - Worthing - Chichester - Southampton - Bornemouth - Wareham - Dorchester - Weymouth
Provigind a direct link to Eurostar avoiding traveling to the busy and complex London

5: Holyhead - Bangor - Llandudno - Chester - Northwich - Altrincham - Stockport - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge - Huddesfield - Wakefield Kirkgate - Goole - Hull

I do have a few more, Let me know if you want me to share it.

 

[FlyingPotato]

For number 1, why not serve Lancaster? Close to 2m use it, to serve Carnforth seems instead a bit silly

Also I'd serve Ulverston as when I'm there, many people seem to use the train

If you are going to split, Lancaster would be better as it's one less train in reality on the congested Lancaster Preston stretch of the wcml

 

[Prestige15]

For number 1, why not serve Lancaster? Close to 2m use it, to serve Carnforth seems instead a bit silly

Also I'd serve Ulverston as when I'm there, many people seem to use the train

Because Lancaster already benefits with regular service to Windermere, London and Barrow so makes sence if it was skipped.

The reason why I didn't added Ulverston is because I totally forgot about it!

 

[JonathanH]

5: Holyhead - Bangor - Llandudno - Chester - Northwich - Altrincham - Stockport - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge - Huddesfield - Wakefield Kirkgate - Goole - Hull

Rule 1 of open access is that it has to serve London. Missing out both Manchester and Leeds isn't going to bring passengers flocking to this service. Which key flows do you think this serves?

4: Ashford International - Rye -Hastings - Eastborne - Lewis - Brighton - Hove - Worthing - Chichester - Southampton - Bornemouth - Wareham - Dorchester - Weymouth
Provigind a direct link to Eurostar avoiding traveling to the busy and complex London

Eurostar aren't showing any interest in serving Ashford. This could only run by reducing services to London from Dorset, and is really awkward to get through Brighton, needing to cross the throat of the main platforms, and reverse in platform 3.

 

[CarrotPie]

4: Ashford International - Rye - Hastings - Eastbourne - Lewes - Brighton - Hove - Worthing - Chichester - Southampton - Bornemouth - Wareham - Dorchester South - Weymouth

That would be an absolute pain in the proverbial to path, especially East of Hastings and in Brighton. Stock would also be an issue, unless you employ the unwanted 769s. Missing out junction stations such as Barnham, Havant and Brockenhurst would be... *interesting* to say the least, but it would also reduce the reach of such a service.

 

[NSE]

I think the problem you’ll find, is that travel patterns are far more accustomed to regular, clockface services that involve changes, instead of infrequent but direct services. The West Coastway being a prime example where the GWR 3/4 tpd has gone and SN increased their Brighton - Southampton service (not in one single timetable change, over the course of a few). I’m not arguing that one is worse than the other, both have their merits. I just think that the few tpd you’re proposing from Holyhead to Hull just wouldn’t meet the demand in the same way 1tph Holyhead - Manchester and Manchester - Hull would.

Of course, OAO aren’t hourly, however Hull Trains have now increased to almost 1tp2h and Grand Central have increased from their original offering, but both serve London which will forever be a huge draw of passengers. Your London suggestions may have some merit, but the ones avoiding London probably don’t (IMO).

Mind you, London isn’t a guaranteed success as Wrexham & Shropshire proved.

 

[JonathanH]

Mind you, London isn’t a guaranteed success as Wrexham & Shropshire proved.

It proved that running a slow through journey to London isn't an attractive proposition for enough passengers to want to use it, at a viable cost.

If it had been possible for it to run quicker, with sufficiently lucrative flows on route, it might have played out differently.

 

[The Planner]

Back in the time when open access operators like Hull Tains was created providing a direct service to London, followed by Grand Central to Sunderland and Bradford, serving the areas far more frequently than the main TOC does. So far it looks like OAO is compeating TOC rather than looking other areas thats been crying out for a better link / direct london service for years.

A few routes I came up which I do believe will be welcomed, thought I would share it see what you all think:

1: (2x5car) London Euston - Watford Junction (pick up/drop off) - Preston - Front 5 car to Oxenholme and then all stations to Windermere, Rear 5 car to Carnforth - Barrow - Millom - Whitehaven - Workington - Maryport - Carlisle
This could also possibly provide the fastest way from London to Blackpool with a change at Preston.

2: London Euston - Tamworth - Litchfield - Winsford - Hartford - Warrington - Newton le Willows - Golborne (if opens) - St helens Central - Huyton - Liverpool.
This would provide a useful link between Winsford/Hartford to Warrington for the first time since London Midland stopped its Birmingham - Preston service years ago as well as a fast direct link to London. Huyton, St helens and Newton would also benefit with a direct London service without the need to change at Liverpool, Wigan or Warrington.

3: London St Pancras - Luton Airport parkway (pick up/drop off) - Ilkeston - Alfreton - New Mill Central - Marble - Guide Bridge (connection to Stalybridge and Manchester) - Roachdale - Todmorden - Burnley - Blackburn


4: Ashford International - Rye -Hastings - Eastborne - Lewis - Brighton - Hove - Worthing - Chichester - Southampton - Bornemouth - Wareham - Dorchester - Weymouth
Provigind a direct link to Eurostar avoiding traveling to the busy and complex London

5: Holyhead - Bangor - Llandudno - Chester - Northwich - Altrincham - Stockport - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge - Huddesfield - Wakefield Kirkgate - Goole - Hull

I do have a few more, Let me know if you want me to share it.

All slow or massively abstractive, especially the WCML ones!

 

[6Gman]

All slow or massively abstractive, especially the WCML ones!

And good luck finding paths!

 

[Russel]

I think it's obvious why no open access operator has considered any of these suggestions...

 

[FlyingPotato]

I think it's obvious why no open access operator has considered any of these suggestions...

I believe that GLNWR or something like that considered Carlisle via barrow

Because Lancaster already benefits with regular service to Windermere, London and Barrow so makes sence if it was skipped.

The reason why I didn't added Ulverston is because I totally forgot about it!

Same can be said for Preston if you are using that logic

 

[Prestige15]

I believe that GLNWR or something like that considered Carlisle via barrow


Same can be said for Preston if you are using that logic

I the past, Grand Central did proposed a Chester - York using 158's. Basically Today's Northern Chester - Leeds.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

I believe that GLNWR or something like that considered Carlisle via barrow

They did indeed- until they saw the line speed, the single line sections, the restrictive infrastructure and the lack of paths.

Then they bid a hasty retreat.

 

[liamf656]

3: London St Pancras - Luton Airport parkway (pick up/drop off) - Ilkeston - Alfreton - New Mill Central - Marble - Guide Bridge (connection to Stalybridge and Manchester) - Roachdale - Todmorden - Burnley - Blackburn

This is highly unlikely to be popular, why is it calling at smaller stations and missing out the larger ones?

5: Holyhead - Bangor - Llandudno - Chester - Northwich - Altrincham - Stockport - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge - Huddesfield - Wakefield Kirkgate - Goole - Hull

I don't see this being popular either with it missing out Manchester and Leeds, even if you did get paths through both. It's a non starter

 

[Clansman]

So far it looks like OAO is compeating TOC rather than looking other areas thats been crying out for a better link / direct london service for years.

That's the point of Open Access though. To compete with TOCs rather than setting out from a social aspect to connect unconnected places (the 'not primarily abstractive' condition doesn't prevent such competition before others point it out). The argument for them is purely economic rather than creating a service purely for new direct routes to London to places that may or may not need it.

It's about making money at the end of the day. Nothing more, nothing less. I think you're proposal is geared towards DfT controlled TOCs rather than Open Access to be honest.

 

[Sprigibax]

Back in the time when open access operators like Hull Tains was created providing a direct service to London, followed by Grand Central to Sunderland and Bradford, serving the areas far more frequently than the main TOC does. So far it looks like OAO is compeating TOC rather than looking other areas thats been crying out for a better link / direct london service for years.

A few routes I came up which I do believe will be welcomed, thought I would share it see what you all think:

1: (2x5car) London Euston - Watford Junction (pick up/drop off) - Preston - Front 5 car to Oxenholme and then all stations to Windermere, Rear 5 car to Carnforth - Barrow - Millom - Whitehaven - Workington - Maryport - Carlisle
This could also possibly provide the fastest way from London to Blackpool with a change at Preston.

2: London Euston - Tamworth - Litchfield - Winsford - Hartford - Warrington - Newton le Willows - Golborne (if opens) - St helens Central - Huyton - Liverpool.
This would provide a useful link between Winsford/Hartford to Warrington for the first time since London Midland stopped its Birmingham - Preston service years ago as well as a fast direct link to London. Huyton, St helens and Newton would also benefit with a direct London service without the need to change at Liverpool, Wigan or Warrington.

3: London St Pancras - Luton Airport parkway (pick up/drop off) - Ilkeston - Alfreton - New Mill Central - Marble - Guide Bridge (connection to Stalybridge and Manchester) - Roachdale - Todmorden - Burnley - Blackburn


4: Ashford International - Rye -Hastings - Eastborne - Lewis - Brighton - Hove - Worthing - Chichester - Southampton - Bornemouth - Wareham - Dorchester - Weymouth
Provigind a direct link to Eurostar avoiding traveling to the busy and complex London

5: Holyhead - Bangor - Llandudno - Chester - Northwich - Altrincham - Stockport - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge - Huddesfield - Wakefield Kirkgate - Goole - Hull

I do have a few more, Let me know if you want me to share it.

I like these ideas. I always thought Wales should be better served, how about a service which runs London Euston - Coventry - Birmingham New Street - Wolverhampton - Telford Central - Shrewsbury - Welshpool - Newtown - Machynlleth - Borth - Aberystwyth?

 

[The Planner]

I like these ideas. I always thought Wales should be better served, how about a service which runs London Euston - Coventry - Birmingham New Street - Wolverhampton - Telford Central - Shrewsbury - Welshpool - Newtown - Machynlleth - Borth - Aberystwyth?

Abstractive to the maximum off existing services. You change at International.

 

[Topological]

If any of the hours are missing an OAO service from Kings Cross, then how about Kings Cross - Peterborough - Stamford - Oakham - Melton Mowbray - East Midlands Parkway - Ilkeston - Alfreton - Chesterfield (if allowed) - then via Barrow Hill (especially if a station gets added that way) and maybe one or two more stops through to York.

That should provide a lot more connectivity, would benefit from the faster ECML to partially offset time lost by not going to St Pancras, and then provides connectivity between East Midlands and the North.

It may also work to do a deal with a coach company so that trains load with East Midlands Parkway - London, or East Midlands Parkway - North (probably less of those though)

Would it be too abstractive to market coaches from the South West and Birmingham to connect into the train at East Midlands? Could give XC a run for their money without getting caught up in Birmingham pathing.

 

[sprunt]

What is the difference between abstraction and competition? Is the point of competing with an existing service not to abstract some of the revenue it's currently raising?

 

[ainsworth74]

What is the difference between abstraction and competition? Is the point of competing with an existing service not to abstract some of the revenue it's currently raising?

New services should not be wholly or primarily abstractive from existing DfT TOCs. That is to say they shouldn't just take the same revenue that a franchised (as was) operator takes. There is no problem with an open access operator taking some of the same revenue as long as they are also generating new revenue. So if your proposed service is London to York that will provide competition to LNER but will be wholly abstractive. If your service is London to Sunderland calling at York then that will clearly still abstract revenue from LNER but will help generate new revenue by providing new direct journey opportunities to London and between Sunderland and York which will grow the market and raise more revenue. This is how Grand Central pass the test. Someone like Lumo manages to pass the test by bringing something new to the market (lower fares, single class akin to low cost airline versus LNER being a "full service" airline) which is also expected to raise more revenue overall than it takes just from LNER even though it services the same route almost exactly

Effectively it's a concession to the principle that we want "on rail" competition between companies but we don't want private companies to just come in and hoover up all the profitable flows and leave the DfT (read taxpayer) with only the unprofitable routes to subsidise.

The above is obviously a gross simplification but hopefully illustrates the broad principle!

 

[Clansman]

What is the difference between abstraction and competition? Is the point of competing with an existing service not to abstract some of the revenue it's currently raising?

The key word in the conditions for Open Access is "primarily abstractive", meaning abstraction is allowed to a certain degree.

As rail is not, and can never be, a fully profitting service on all routes, profitable routes thus subsidise the loss making ones to make the railway as sustainable as possible. While OAOs bare all the risk, they have the advantage of serving a route they have reason to believe could be profitable and self sustaining without the economic responsibility for funding loss making routes - otherwise there would be no OAOs.

Being competitive ideally would treat both OAO and DfT TOCs equally, but the element of pubic transport and subsidies puts DfT TOCs at a disadvantage, meaning ticket prices reflect the need to bring additional income in that might not reflect demand elasticity on profitable routes but instead the need to fund network as a whole. This is what gives OAOs the upper hand: lower competitive prices and lower costs (rather than higher prices to better sustain the higher costs of a wider unprofittable network - such is the nature of public transport).

The Primarily Abstractive condition thus forces competition to be around new demand, and not existing demand. If OAOs took existing demand due to their advantage, less money would be made by DfT TOCs on profitable routes due to lower demand, which increases tax-payer cost, risks an increase in ticket prices or service cuts (and job losses) to sustain.

Competing to generate new demand still promotes competition and actually allows OAOs to monopolise this to a certain extent through the principles above, which is quite effective (as GC and HT have proven), ethical, and contributes more to the rail industry and the tax-payer than it takes away whilst still allowing a degree of competition where routes overlap (such as GC serving York to London).

Edit: @ainsworth74 beat me to it!

 

[NER1621]

Someone like Lumo manages to pass the test by bringing something new to the market (lower fares, single class akin to low cost airline versus LNER being a "full service" airline) which is also expected to raise more revenue overall than it takes just from LNER even though it services the same route almost exactly

I really don’t see how LUMO brings anything new at all to the market and I’d like to bet that 99% of its passengers are abstracted from LNER, despite all LUMO’s guff about competing with airlines. Where LUMO could bring something new is if it became the vehicle for DfT’s experiments with removing off peak flexible tickets from the ECML, and the DfT left LNER alone to provide a decent flexible service connecting ALL the towns and cities on the ECML. I do get the impression that DfT think that the only purpose of the ECML is to get Londoners to and from the Edinburgh Festival quickly.

 

[CarrotPie]

I do get the impression that DfT think that the only purpose of the ECML is to get Londoners to and from the Edinburgh Festival quickly.

Wait - it's not?

 

[Ken H]

Why do open access services have to be long. Maybe there are holes in local services they could fill.
How about Walsall - Wolverhampton? They could add value by starting back at Aldridge at a new station.

Or Clithroe - Hellifield?

Wakefield - Castleford - York?

 

[sprunt]

Edit: @ainsworth74 beat me to it!

And thank you both!

 

[bussnapperwm]

What about a OAO centering on Brum and using Moor Street or Snow Hill as its stop instead of New Street

 

[A S Leib]

I’d like to bet that 99% of its passengers are abstracted from LNER, despite all LUMO’s guff about competing with airlines.

I don't know if the main issue's a lack of will on Lumo's part or a lack of capacity on the ECML, but if all Lumo services called at Stevenage it would be easier to claim that they were attracting passengers who'd otherwise have gone to Luton or Stansted.

 

[The Planner]

What about a OAO centering on Brum and using Moor Street or Snow Hill as its stop instead of New Street

To and from where? You are limited on routes there, and seeing as you need a London stop to consider making any cash, I can't see where you would go.

 

[bussnapperwm]

To and from where? You are limited on routes there, and seeing as you need a London stop to consider making any cash, I can't see where you would go.

You've got access to places like Reading, Oxford, Bournemouth, etc from Moor Street and from Snow Hill you've got the South West as well as Reading and Oxford, so places like Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth could be used etc. Especially as WMR run a 10/20 frequency and have no current intention of evening it out or reinserting the missing services, the paths from those could be used by a OAO maybe.

Plus Moor Street/Snow Hill could be used as a calling point en route from a smaller station to one of those destinations (for example the former branch platform at Langley Green could be reinstated and used, or work with the SVR to run a Brum to Bewdley commuter service as an extension of a longer distance OAO route from Brum)

 

[Sprigibax]

What about a OAO centering on Brum and using Moor Street or Snow Hill as its stop instead of New Street

If there was a curve connecting the Snow Hill lines to the WCML, I could see an alternative London - Glasgow service running London Marylebone - Banbury - Moor Street - Snow Hill - Wolverhampton - Stoke - Manchester Piccadilly - Blackburn - Settle - Kirkby Stephen - Appleby - Carlisle - Dumfries - Kilmarnock - Paisley Gilmour Street - Glasgow Central. Although that’s a lot of stops, so it may need to be broken down (London - Manchester, London - Carlisle, London - Glasgow).