Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

[Brubulus]

Unless GBR runs a much enhanced network so that open access operators are completely superfluous, and are left running nothing more than Lumo-style raids and heritage/charter specials like the Jacobite then that absolutely and categorically MUST NOT be the case. Passengers making some journeys must not be disadvantaged compared with others just because their route happens to be one that open access operators contribute to. Passengers have every right to expect a universal booking and ticketing system that covers all of the network, and should not have to consult numerous different websites and potentially have to book split tickets to make a reasonable journey.

If we allow open access to be part of our rail system then it is part of it and not apart from it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 22:20 ==


Quite. Two of the most common journeys I make are from Selby to Doncaster (out on LNER, back on HT) and Selby to Croydon (through ticket covering HT and Thameslink) – with no revenue sharing, buying tickets for both of these journeys would be more expensive and more complicated. This is not some arcane theoretical point, these are actual journeys that I personally make on a regular basis.

I can understand splitting the backend of tickets such that through journeys would look like 1 ticket and have connection protection etc, but actually be a ticket for the GBR section and a ticket for OA section. Interavaliable tickets would still work but revenue would default to GBR unless specifically scanned by an OA.

 

[Wolfie]

The open access operator should negotiate that with GBR.

Separate tickets would be required for the part of the journey with the open access operator and the part of the journey on Government train services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 19:28 ==

The ORR today published the following letter dated 28 June 2025 from First Group MD Steve Montgomery in response to the latest letter from the DfT to the ORR. This letter of response from First Group emphasises that the ORR must decide applications in accordance with current law.

Shot across DfT's bows that me learned friends are ready and watching. I wonder what the views of Government Legal Department and DfT's in-house legal advisers were about that letter.... I seriously doubt that they were keen....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 22:31 ==

I did say *effectively*. OK some delivery is contracted, but TfL carries branding, train spec, revenue risk & decides what runs; ticketing is unified even between modes. That's an entirely different model to OA and it works.

Competition from OA provides IMO, negligible overall benefit (OA passenger number are tiny vs franchise) and it comes at significant external cost.

I'd argue the only plausible benefit of OA is to keep public operator(s) honest, but then the real competition is with road and air.

So personally, I'd just give GBR a duty to increase modal share, however they want to achieve it, but most likely involving lots of cheaper fares and better passenger experience (e.g. no more uncomfortable seats).

That last para shows a complete ignorance of public sector finances and the way that HMT operates.... No one, but no one, gets a blank cheque....

 

[Sonik]

Unless GBR runs a much enhanced network so that open access operators are completely superfluous

Anything less, would be politically untenable (and that's likely the reason why DfT do everything they can now, to block or delay new applications)

OTOH, cheaper walk-up tickets for everyone (becoming possible because there is no revenue sharing with OA) is likely to be extremely popular.

That last para shows a complete ignorance of public sector finances and the way that HMT operates.... No one, but no one, gets a blank cheque....

Assuming that GBR won't easily find many ways to deliver better value, than a bunch of micromanaging accountants at the DfT.

Look what Chris Green did with NSE, and basically no budget.

 

[Bald Rick]

Look what Chris Green did with NSE, and basically no budget.

Oh he had a budget alright.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Oh, Chris Green had plenty of money to spend - those were the years of plenty. After years of scrimping and saving, when the money taps were turned on again in the mid 1980’s, everyone took advantage. The amount of money we had to spend at NSE was positively obscene.

And in each financial year, if NSE hadn’t spent enough by February, it was “quick spend” time with even more money for us to buy kit with or paint things.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Oh, Chris Green had plenty of money to spend - those were the years of plenty. After years of scrimping and saving, when the money taps were turned on again in the mid 1980’s, everyone took advantage. The amount of money we had to spend at NSE was positively obscene.

And in each financial year, if NSE hadn’t spent enough by February, it was “quick spend” time with even more money for us to buy kit with or paint things.

A lot of electrification was done around that time, including 25kV AC overhead for the West Anglia and Fen Lines all the way to Kings Lynn and 750V dc third rail for Bournemouth to Weymouth and for Southampton and Eastleigh to Portsmouth including a new station at Hedge End enabling the hourly London Waterloo to Portsmouth via Eastleigh train service.

Now it is next to impossible to get money for anything which is why open access applications are getting a lot of support including from MPs. The open access application to run a passenger service on the Waterside Line is a result of the Government not funding the Restoring Your Railway application for a Hythe-Marchwood-Totton-Southampton train service. This open access application is getting a lot of support because people have given up on getting funding from the Government.

There is no point in anyone in the DfT complaining about open access because they do not have the funds to provide the services offered by open access passenger train operators. The Prime Minister's visit to the Hitachi factory to celebrate train orders from open access passenger train operators makes this point very clearly.

 

[Brubulus]

A lot of electrification was done around that time, including 25kV AC overhead for the West Anglia and Fen Lines all the way to Kings Lynn and 750V dc third rail for Bournemouth to Weymouth and for Southampton and Eastleigh to Portsmouth including a new station at Hedge End enabling the hourly London Waterloo to Portsmouth via Eastleigh train service.

Now it is next to impossible to get money for anything which is why open access applications are getting a lot of support including from MPs. The open access application to run a passenger service on the Waterside Line is a result of the Government not funding the Restoring Your Railway application for a Hythe-Marchwood-Totton-Southampton train service. This open access application is getting a lot of support because people have given up on getting funding from the Government.

There is no point in anyone in the DfT complaining about open access because they do not have the funds to provide the services offered by open access passenger train operators. The Prime Minister's visit to the Hitachi factory to celebrate train orders from open access passenger train operators makes this point very clearly.

That proposal is abstraction funded investment- quite a substantial investment in terms of the new station at Marchwood and the restoration of passenger services, in return for 7 years of abstraction on London-Southampton flows.

 

[JonathanH]

That proposal is abstraction funded investment- quite a substantial investment in terms of the new station at Marchwood and the restoration of passenger services, in return for 7 years of abstraction on London-Southampton flows.

The economics seem really odd. How is it feasible for abstraction to fund investment on the line to Marchwood? What happens if the plug is pulled in 2029 on any operation that gets established between London and Marchwood. Why would the open access operator be able to secure funding for work on the Marchwood station and hiring rolling stock if the 2029 changes loom over it?

 

[weeklycommuter]

That proposal is abstraction funded investment- quite a substantial investment in terms of the new station at Marchwood and the restoration of passenger services, in return for 7 years of abstraction on London-Southampton flows.

The Government refused to reinstate the hourly semi-fast London Waterloo to Southampton Central service which was promised for December 2022. The Government clearly has no intention of reinstating this service for the foreseeable future. The only service Eastleigh to London Waterloo is the hourly service from Portsmouth via Eastleigh.

There is no train service Marchwood to Southampton, London Waterloo or any other station so there is nothing to abstract there. Clearly the proposal is funded by extending the hourly Marchwood-Totton-Southampton service every two hours to and from London Waterloo but the Government has refused to restore the semi-fast hourly service that used to run between Southampton and London Waterloo that would have used the paths, carried the passengers and collected their fare revenue.

The DfT is complaining that open access train services abstract revenue but the Government never provided these train services and I see no prospect of the Government providing these train services at present.

 

[Richardr]

In summary the current applications must be assessed against the current law.

To me that is entirely correct. Rather than write letters the government has every right to change the law. In the meantime an independent regulator has to act under the current law and where relevant existing contracts.

 

[NCT]

Even proponents of removing Open Access in this thread can't agree on what the end state should look like. Some think GBR should just take over the operation largely as is (but with minor modifications to service patterns to fit better with the overall infrastructure); some want Hull and Sunderland to lose their direct services with trunk ECML paths diverted to serve Scotland; some think the services should just be terminated with white space restored to improve performance. We don't even agree on whether the government should be profit maximising or providing a break-even service for maximum social value. And I suspect within the political quarters that wield the power similar is true, and that highlights the danger of political hubris taking hold.

The existing public sector parts of the industry have instruments at their disposal - Network Rail's Part J and declaring Congested Infrastructure. For the SoS to undermine the ORR's independence isn't just incompetent but also worrying - it's China Communist Party stuff.

 

[weeklycommuter]

ORR press release rejecting the three WCML open access applications (WSMR, Lumo Rochdale, Virgin). This is due to lack of capacity on the WCML and nothing to do with any of the letters from the DfT.

Rail regulator rejects West Coast Main Line applications due to insufficient capacity | Office of Rail and Road

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has rejected applications from three companies seeking track access contracts with Network Rail to run services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

www.orr.gov.uk

Rail regulator rejects West Coast Main Line applications due to insufficient capacity
3 July 2025
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has rejected applications from three companies seeking track access contracts with Network Rail to run services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).
ORR concluded there is insufficient capacity on the West Coast Main Line southern section for the introduction of any of the proposed services: from East Coast Trains Limited (Lumo NW); the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company Limited (WSMR); and Virgin Management Limited (Virgin). To introduce any of these proposals would be detrimental to performance on the WCML and therefore all passengers and freight customers.
ORR determines all track access applications in accordance with its statutory duties. In the case of these three applications, lack of capacity and the anticipated impact on performance alone meant we could not approve them. As such, our duty to have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State was not relevant to this decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 07:26 ==

It is now clear that the only way to get more train services on the West Coast Mainline is to complete and open HS2 from London to Birmingham.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 07:46 ==

There is more information on the rejection of the three applications to run open access services on the WCML in the following letter on the ORR website.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-07-03-applications-for-access-to-the-west-coast-main-line-decision.pdf

Applications for access to the West Coast Main Line (WCML)
1. We have carefully considered the applications for track access contracts with Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) made by East Coast Trains Limited (Lumo NW), The Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company Limited (WSMR) and Virgin Management Limited (Virgin). These were submitted to us under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) between March and May 2024.
2. We have rejected each of these applications. We considered whether any of the three applications could be approved. We also considered the three Virgin service groups in their own right. We have arrived at the same conclusion for each application and rejected them on the grounds that there is insufficient capacity on the network and the introduction of these services would be detrimental to performance on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). This letter explains in detail the reasons for our decision.

 

[Zomboid]

t is now clear that the only way to get more train services on the West Coast Mainline is to complete and open HS2 from London to Birmingham

That is the reason it's being built, so no shock there really.

 

[Harpo]

For the SoS to undermine the ORR's independence isn't just incompetent but also worrying - it's China Communist Party stuff.

Hyperbole aside (but the Daily Mail would love it) the SoS is, at worst, possibly over-reaching in trying to effect future policy or legislation before it comes into effect.

Politically, like so many other issues involving this government, there were more finessed routes to their aims. For example, a stated policy of taking all new OAOs into public ownership by (date) without compensation would have served notice on time limitations.

Over to the courts.

 

[NCT]

Hyperbole aside (but the Daily Mail would love it) the SoS is, at worst, possibly over-reaching in trying to effect future policy or legislation before it comes into effect.

This kind of over-reaching is something a competent government respecting due process should not go anywhere near.

Politically, like so many other issues involving this government, there were more finessed routes to their aims. For example, a stated policy of taking all new OAOs into public ownership by (date) without compensation would have served notice on time limitations.

This kind of explicit policy announcement would probably land the government in very hot waters, and send a very start message to the private sector on what kind of business environment we want this country to be.

 

[Harpo]

This kind of explicit policy announcement would probably land the government in very hot waters, and send a very start message to the private sector on what kind of business environment we want this country to be.

I don’t see how giving finite life expectancy to new OAOs would cause that. It’s a logical extension of taking franchises back into public control. In reverse, the current flurry of OAO applications appear to be TOC owners’ attempts to cream off lucrative flows before their franchised estate disappears.

 

[Wolfie]

I don’t see how giving finite life expectancy to new OAOs would cause that. It’s a logical extension of taking franchises back into public control. In reverse, the current flurry of OAO applications appear to be TOC owners’ attempts to cream off lucrative flows before their franchised estate disappears.

For a start it is effectively a way of circumventing the current legislation by guaranteeing that there are no new OAOs as they would be economically unviable. Secondly it is the function of ORR under the current legislation to set time bounds on OAOs. Any HMG attempts to cut across that would rightly be litigated.

 

[Harpo]

Secondly it is the function of ORR under the current legislation to set time bounds on OAOs. Any HMG attempts to cut across that would rightly be litigated.

There was nothing to stop Labour announcing a policy for a passenger OAO end point and associated compensation (or otherwise) with the aim of legislating for that subsequently. Nobody can litigate against a stated government policy so far as I am aware?

 

[Zomboid]

There was nothing to stop Labour announcing a policy for a passenger OAO end point and associated compensation (or otherwise) with the aim of legislating for that subsequently. Nobody can litigate against a stated government policy so far as I am aware?

So long as the new legislation doesn't conflict with other stuff on the statue book (or repeals anything it does) then they'd probably be fine.

The message it would send though is another matter.

 

[JonathanH]

The message it would send though is another matter.

The message it surely sends is that the railway network is almost uniquely a finite resource and that it is for a central organisation to plan the services, fares and development that operate on it, without outside influences looking to make that central planning more difficult.

It is then for local politicians and other strategic organisations to put a business case to the central organisation to ensure the right places are served within the funding provided from government.

It recognises the circumstances of the railway, and doesnt really feed to other areas of the economy.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The message it surely sends is that the railway network is almost uniquely a finite resource and that it is for a central organisation to plan the services, fares and development that operate on it, without outside influences looking to make that central planning more difficult.

Well, that’s definitely the last nail in the freight growth coffin then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, that’s definitely the last nail in the freight growth coffin then.

There absolutely can't be freight growth involving the WCML until the relevant piece of HS2 is in place, no. That's one key reason for it.

 

[HSTEd]

The economics seem really odd. How is it feasible for abstraction to fund investment on the line to Marchwood? What happens if the plug is pulled in 2029 on any operation that gets established between London and Marchwood. Why would the open access operator be able to secure funding for work on the Marchwood station and hiring rolling stock if the 2029 changes loom over it?

I'd expect it is because the operator expects to be able to use the threat of abandoning the Marchwood line to obtain ongoing abstraction.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There absolutely can't be freight growth involving the WCML until the relevant piece of HS2 is in place, no. That's one key reason for it.

I wasn’t talking solely about the WCML. The post to which I was responding referred to (presumably all) “outside influences” on network planning and development. That would seem to apply to stone trains from Tunstead or steel to and from Port Talbot, etc. as much as intermodal trains on the WCML.

(New and additional trains have just started serving the new Northampton Gateway strategic rail freight interchange by the way.

 

[A S Leib]

How realistic would it be for councils to set up their own open-access operators? I know that local government finances aren't in the best of shapes, but if e.g. Hull Trains were stopped from running whilst being profitable and LNER / GBR didn't fill the gap, could (should they be allowed to) Hull, East Riding etc. councils fund an alternative? London Overground, Elizabeth Line, Merseyrail, TfW and ScotRail will already exist as public non-GBR operators.

 

[The Planner]

How realistic would it be for councils to set up their own open-access operators? I know that local government finances aren't in the best of shapes, but if e.g. Hull Trains were stopped from running whilst being profitable and LNER / GBR didn't fill the gap, could (should they be allowed to) Hull, East Riding etc. councils fund an alternative? London Overground, Elizabeth Line, Merseyrail, TfW and ScotRail will already exist as public non-GBR operators.

They might have the aspiration, but they would be outsourcing everything to do with it.

 

[Zomboid]

There's nothing to stop anyone from making an OA application, but I don't know whether a council come really fund one.

 

[Bald Rick]

How realistic would it be for councils to set up their own open-access operators? I know that local government finances aren't in the best of shapes, but if e.g. Hull Trains were stopped from running whilst being profitable and LNER / GBR didn't fill the gap, could (should they be allowed to) Hull, East Riding etc. councils fund an alternative? London Overground, Elizabeth Line, Merseyrail, TfW and ScotRail will already exist as public non-GBR operators.

Why would a public organisation want to do that, rather than contract the railway to do it directly (as many councils have over the years).

 

[A S Leib]

Why would a public organisation want to do that, rather than contract the railway to do it directly (as many councils have over the years).

Hence the "if... LNER / GBR didn't fill the gap".

 

[NCT]

How realistic would it be for councils to set up their own open-access operators? I know that local government finances aren't in the best of shapes, but if e.g. Hull Trains were stopped from running whilst being profitable and LNER / GBR didn't fill the gap, could (should they be allowed to) Hull, East Riding etc. councils fund an alternative? London Overground, Elizabeth Line, Merseyrail, TfW and ScotRail will already exist as public non-GBR operators.

There's no practical way of distinguishing between different types of Open Access operators.

If people want to allow freight, services from devolved authorities or local councils, and charters, but not allow private commercial Open Access operators, then I don't see a 'good law' way of doing it.