• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,442
They do a few e.g. Edinburgh-Stansted.

So there are, I stand corrected. 3 a day. Enough to not quite fill one 9 car Azuma each way.


If we cut the subsidy by x% this will be the impact (lines close, reduce services, whatever) but we could then raise personal income tax allowances by y". I have no idea what the impact of the full ~50% subsidy is or how that would reflect into say personal tax allowances, but someone must have the numbers, and to be honest that is what the choice comes down to.

Well, current subsidy for the operational railway (excluding railway upgrades) is in the region of £12bn. I don’t know what it means in personal allowances or income tax due to the way banding works, but it is broadly equivalent to a quarter of all NI payments by employees, or abolishing stamp duty land tax, or abolishing all alcohol duties, or (relevant to transport) halving fuel duties.

As you say, political choices.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,913
Where capacity is limited, extending trains is by far the cheapest option for expanding it, especially where paths are limiting, such as on the ECML. Using paths on short 5-car trains, when it could be a 9, 10, 11, 12-car train is a waste of potential capacity.
This is why the Cleethorpes proposal involves coupling and running full length trains into London on the ECML
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
2,038
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
Well, current subsidy for the operational railway (excluding railway upgrades) is in the region of £12bn. I don’t know what it means in personal allowances or income tax due to the way banding works, but it is broadly equivalent to a quarter of all NI payments by employees, or abolishing stamp duty land tax, or abolishing all alcohol duties, or (relevant to transport) halving fuel duties.

As you say, political choices.
And I think if any politician presented the numbers in those stark terms they may have a hard sell on their hands to maintain the current level of subsidy. It is also relevent to the HS2 debate, as if Euston - Birmingham finishes north of £100bn then that is ~8 years subsidy to the rest of the network.

Back on topic, the only way I could see an arguement to remove current OAs would be if the removal of the OAs would make a significant difference to the finacial situation of the 'subsidised railway' and I dont believe it would. Should the exisitng ones be allowed to continue beyond their current agreements, I would say yes they should. At a personal level I know if Hull Trains were absorbed into LNER at the end of their current agreement whatever lip service sleazy politicians paid to maintain direct Hull and East Yorkshire services within a couple of years the area would be back to the same token service LNER currently offer.

I do not think the time is right however for any new OA operations on the ECML or anywhere else that has used up pretty much all the capacity.

To be honest I dont see OA a significant problem to the state run railway (what ever form it takes) there are other far more pressing issues which should be addressed.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,442
Back on topic, the only way I could see an arguement to remove current OAs would be if the removal of the OAs would make a significant difference to the finacial situation of the 'subsidised railway' and I dont believe it would.

Why don’t you believe it would?
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,982
And I think if any politician presented the numbers in those stark terms they may have a hard sell on their hands to maintain the current level of subsidy.
I think if a politician presented the numbers for anything that receives government funding in those terms they would find defending it hard!
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
1,020
Location
Oxford
. At a personal level I know if Hull Trains were absorbed into LNER at the end of their current agreement whatever lip service sleazy politicians paid to maintain direct Hull and East Yorkshire services within a couple of years the area would be back to the same token service LNER currently offer
I don't know how you can know that. HT have proven that there is a market, and I'm sure that's been a factor in the fact that LNER have started serving Lincoln and Middlesbrough. If the service continued to bring in custom then surely it would continue to run.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
4,850
Location
Hope Valley
I don't know how you can know that. HT have proven that there is a market, and I'm sure that's been a factor in the fact that LNER have started serving Lincoln and Middlesbrough. If the service continued to bring in custom then surely it would continue to run.
Perhaps the Secretary of State could quell any unease in Hull, Hartlepool, Morpeth, Mirfield and their ilk with a statutory guarantee that those stations would retain current frequencies to London for (say) five years after the end of their open access services, after which they could be dealt with by normal timetable development.

This would avoid the sort of mistrust that has built up in places like Shrewsbury, Blackpool and Grimsby over decades going back to the British Rail era where summary withdrawals and frustrated aspirations (often described as ‘promises’) regarding re-establishment have continued.
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
2,038
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
I don't know how you can know that
I don't know it, but the lessons from history are that promises can be and are broken. Even if frequency were cast in stone legally there are still ways to make a service unattractive if people high up want to close it.

Back to my original point, I think there are bigger problems facing the railways in the UK than a handful of OA operators, and GBR or whatever the final entity is needs to concentrate on them. When that GBR operation is running well with issues like fare complexity, xc overcrowding, silo mentality broken down, electrification progressing at a speed which will ensure that at the least a completion date for inter city route is visible and likely to be be met, and costs are constrained, then maybe look at OA.
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
1,020
Location
Oxford
Even if frequency were cast in stone legally there are still ways to make a service unattractive if people high up want to close it.
Laws can be passed and changed, yes. I just don't see why they'd want to withdraw service to Hull. Clearly HT have shown that there is a market and a sizeable city to serve.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,434
But none of the destinations off the ECML served by the OA operators seem to warrant more than 5 coaches, but yet once on the ECML its a five car occupying a slot that could be used by a 10 car train.

So the Treasury and DfT would need to give assurances that the services to Hull, Cleethopes, Lincoln, Middlesbrough Sunderland etc that they could be operated as splits of services at either York or Doncaster.

It should also be noted that in the past DfT threw their toys out of the pram over OA when it came to infrastructure enhancements and withdrew the funding as the ORR gave the extra paths created to OA operators.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,855
I don't know it, but the lessons from history are that promises can be and are broken. Even if frequency were cast in stone legally there are still ways to make a service unattractive if people high up want to close it.

Back to my original point, I think there are bigger problems facing the railways in the UK than a handful of OA operators, and GBR or whatever the final entity is needs to concentrate on them. When that GBR operation is running well with issues like fare complexity, xc overcrowding, silo mentality broken down, electrification progressing at a speed which will ensure that at the least a completion date for inter city route is visible and likely to be be met, and costs are constrained, then maybe look at OA.
The problem is that open access will require maintenance of a significant part of the silo mentality.
To do otherwise will be to risk an endless stream of court cases.

Beyond that, electrification has probably already missed its window - battery tech has gutted the bulk of the business case.
 

martin butler

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Messages
17
Where I am in East Sussex, we basically have just South eastern, and Southern, I think that a case could be made for combining both, into one TOC, There is the un electrified lines going to Ashford, and Uckfield, Now, at the moment Southern operate these lines, but at both ends of the Hastings to Ashford line South east operates services, At the moment additional, 3rd rail electrification, is not permitted, but A case could be made for electrifying the gap, and allowing South eastern to operate services via both Ashford, and Hastings, and it would free up the 172's used to be cascaded elsewhere,
 

Brubulus

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2022
Messages
625
Location
Cambridge
How integrated will TfW be with GBR? Is there any situation where the DfT will be blocking TfW from operating trains "too far into England" and abstracting revenue from DfT GBR. That is the logical conclusion of this anti-OA crusade.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
4,850
Location
Hope Valley
The problem is that open access will require maintenance of a significant part of the silo mentality.
To do otherwise will be to risk an endless stream of court cases.
What do you really mean by this?

Won’t the operation of TfW, ScotRail, Caledonian Sleeper, Merseyrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line, Freight (target increase 75%) and Charter services (and a few other bits and pieces) as well as OA continue to require some sort of charging, capacity allocation, performance management, safety integration and so on anyway?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,855
What do you really mean by this?

Won’t the operation of TfW, ScotRail, Caledonian Sleeper, Merseyrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line, Freight (target increase 75%) and Charter services (and a few other bits and pieces) as well as OA continue to require some sort of charging, capacity allocation, performance management, safety integration and so on anyway?
TfW, ScotRail, Caledonian Sleeper, Merseyrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line are all functionally arms of the state. The branding or which particular branch of the state controls service provision isn't really important - they certainly aren't private sector operations.

Freight, Charter and Open Access are the ones that cause issues.
However, Charter services are probably on the way out in the long run, rolling stock issues will likely kill most of them in the relatively near future.

Freight operators are more problematic, but I expect freight integration will be next in GBR sights once OA is dealt with. However, freight operators don't require access to various passenger facing systems, only to track access etc.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
1,640
Location
Newport
However, Charter services are probably on the way out in the long run, rolling stock issues will likely kill most of them in the relatively near future.
The charter market has spent a long time moving from enthusiast to dining and then the luxury end of the market. Tatty sealed air-cons are slowly completing that exodus. It will kill off at least one and maybe other crank-friendly operators but I doubt that charters will cease entirely.
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,913
TfW, ScotRail, Caledonian Sleeper, Merseyrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line are all functionally arms of the state. The branding or which particular branch of the state controls service provision isn't really important - they certainly aren't private sector operations.

Freight, Charter and Open Access are the ones that cause issues.
However, Charter services are probably on the way out in the long run, rolling stock issues will likely kill most of them in the relatively near future.

Freight operators are more problematic, but I expect freight integration will be next in GBR sights once OA is dealt with. However, freight operators don't require access to various passenger facing systems, only to track access etc.
In the nicest possible way, I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,367
Location
Bolton
TfW, ScotRail, Caledonian Sleeper, Merseyrail, London Overground, Elizabeth Line are all functionally arms of the state. The branding or which particular branch of the state controls service provision isn't really important - they certainly aren't private sector operations.

Freight, Charter and Open Access are the ones that cause issues.
However, Charter services are probably on the way out in the long run, rolling stock issues will likely kill most of them in the relatively near future.

Freight operators are more problematic, but I expect freight integration will be next in GBR sights once OA is dealt with. However, freight operators don't require access to various passenger facing systems, only to track access etc.
This makes very little sense. Do you really think the Scottish or Northern Irish parliaments are going to willingly hand over their entire infrastructure to the Minister in London? Do you think the Welsh government are going to just give up the CVL infrastructure? What could posses parliamentarians there from any party to agree to that? Is Westminster going to force them to give it up?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,855
This makes very little sense. Do you really think the Scottish or Northern Irish parliaments are going to willingly hand over their entire infrastructure to the Minister in London? Do you think the Welsh government are going to just give up the CVL infrastructure? What could posses parliamentarians there from any party to agree to that? Is Westminster going to force them to give it up?
How likely do you think the Scottish and Welsh governments (NI is irrelevant because not part of the National Rail system) are to initiate state aid lawsuits against the UK government because of collusion between infrastructure and operations?

That seems rather less likely than Lumo et al suing because they think their access charges are set too high or they've not been given the choice paths.

Also why would the CVL even matter? The Core Valley Lines aren't part of the National Rail System now.

EDIT:
Also the Scottish government owns very little rail infrastructure as far as I know.
 
Last edited:

Brubulus

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2022
Messages
625
Location
Cambridge
This makes very little sense. Do you really think the Scottish or Northern Irish parliaments are going to willingly hand over their entire infrastructure to the Minister in London? Do you think the Welsh government are going to just give up the CVL infrastructure? What could posses parliamentarians there from any party to agree to that? Is Westminster going to force them to give it up?
No, but should TfW services be forced to terminate at the first stop in England since after that, they are abstracting the rightful revenue of the DfT. That's where this attitude will get us. While many OA operations are currently a waste of paths, given short train lengths, and under-contribiting to the finances of the railway.

Track access charges should be raised to levels the market can still bear, but would be similar to DfT revenue if a franchised operator ran a similar service. This would mean rates on the ECML and Welsh Marches would be radically different due to the different profile of service. I'm assuming TFW will have to work incredibly closely with GBR both financially and operationally, given the level of overlap.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,367
Location
Bolton
How likely do you think the Scottish and Welsh governments (NI is irrelevant because not part of the National Rail system) are to initiate state aid lawsuits against the UK government because of collusion between infrastructure and operations?
Are you saying that's the only thing they could do? Because if you really believe that GBR are going to try and chuck them off "their" infrastructure then I can think of rather a lot of other things they'd do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

That seems rather less likely than Lumo et al suing because they think their access charges are set too high or they've not been given the choice paths.
Lumo are more likely to resort to legal action because that's their only real option if the relationship gets that bad, yes. Transport for Wales however have rather a lot more options to retaliate if the Minister tried to, say, take away their rights to run between Chester and Manchester Airport, or charge them so much to use the track between Hereford and Manchester Piccadilly that it would be difficult for them to maintain the current service level. These ideas are totally unrealistic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Also why would the CVL even matter? The Core Valley Lines aren't part of the National Rail System now.

EDIT:
Also the Scottish government owns very little rail infrastructure as far as I know.
I don't think any of this is accurate.
 

43074

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Messages
2,109
But none of the destinations off the ECML served by the OA operators seem to warrant more than 5 coaches, but yet once on the ECML its a five car occupying a slot that could be used by a 10 car train.
Hull Trains have several 10-car services each day. Grand Central had booked 10-car services before COVID so that's a sweeping generalisation.

I'm sceptical that not renewing Open Access rights would actually achieve anything - politically it seems untenable for the likes of Hull, Hartlepool or Sunderland to lose their direct London services completely, so all that would happen would be for LNER to run them instead. Even then they certainly wouldn't disappear without appeals or a fight in the courts from the owning groups.

We seem to be heading towards a minimalist GBR whose attitude towards running trains is that it's too much hassle, much like NR's current attitude in places; there's no evidence as yet to say that if we abolished Open Access that LNER would run 2 hourly to Hull in their place for instance.
 

renegademaster

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
1,807
Location
Croydon
Open Access is an EU hobby horse, and our whole post brexit trading arrangements are based around the principle that if we don't diverge too far from EU regulations they will not impose trade barriers on us, and with Keir trying to align even closer with them, we aren't going to do anything to annoy them
 

styles

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
926
Location
Midlothian
But none of the destinations off the ECML served by the OA operators seem to warrant more than 5 coaches, but yet once on the ECML its a five car occupying a slot that could be used by a 10 car train.

Hull Trains do operate 10 car services, and First Group have said publicly they plan to expand this provision.

First Group have also signalled they want longer sets for Lumo. Lumo has only been going a few years, and I think even First Group were taken aback at it turning a profit within a year. It proved far more popular than they anticipated. They went with 5 car sets to meet the ORR minimum seating requirements for their contract, which was a sensible conservative business decision; but I reckon they could run 10 car sets for all their services if they wanted and people would lap it up. With the economies of scale they could potentially even reduce their fares a little once any capex is paid off.

Grand Central run 10 car sets, albeit not very frequently.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,272
I'd love to see a Venn Diagram of people who support nationalisation and people who support Open Access.
 

styles

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
926
Location
Midlothian
I'd love to see a Venn Diagram of people who support nationalisation and people who support Open Access.
I suspect there's a fair amount of people who would prefer full nationalisation and the eventual removal of open access operators; but who recognise that the open access operators currently fill a gap the nationalised operators aren't delivering. Whether that's low fares or direct services to particular cities.
 

The Middle

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2022
Messages
147
Location
Uk
I suspect there's a fair amount of people who would prefer full nationalisation and the eventual removal of open access operators; but who recognise that the open access operators currently fill a gap the nationalised operators aren't delivering. Whether that's low fares or direct services to particular cities.
....or that Open Access delivers a relatively small but healthy competition to the state operator that creates a net benefit in promoting modal shift, provides competition on fares and keeps some level of innovation in the sector.
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
1,020
Location
Oxford
Passenger Open Access is a very broad concept. I don't think many people would argue with the notion that Hull Trains have been a net positive for the railway. The DfT missed an opportunity to properly serve Hull and clearly they should have.

Lumo's Edinburgh service is a purely abstractive thing and I'm surprised that it got access rights, but they've shown that there's a demand for that kind of thing so it's proof that the DfT were missing a trick there, too. I don't blame First for seeing a gap and filling it, I blame the DfT for not realising that there was money to be made in that way.

Some of the newer ideas I think are doomed to fail. The new WSMR I just can't see working, for example.
 

Top