Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

[NCT]

Capacity is an an engineering problem, not a customer problem.

It's a whole system problem, and a political problem.

Solving it takes time (decades, generations), and until that happens it's a matter of political rationing.

 

[Stossgebet]

How about treating OAO like oil and gas companies. Hit them with a massive windfall tax on their profits. Do it at an amount which makes it not worth their effort. Or an amount that more than offsets their costs to the DfT and Treasury. Then do something more accomodating for the freight operators. Then do away with the whole track access charging philosophy, that Brussels imposed upon us, with their 1991 mandate to seperate train and track.

We can do this thanks to Brexit. And the UK no longer being part of the eu single market. The eu fourth railway package being the completion of the eu single market (for rail) and we are no longer bound by it.

When the OAO give up. The market for rail that has been found by the existing OAO and run with good passenger load factors, should be picked up by GBR and not abandoned.

 

[Dr Hoo]

How about treating OAO like oil and gas companies. Hit them with a massive windfall tax on their profits. Do it at an amount which makes it not worth their effort. Or an amount that more than offsets their costs to the DfT and Treasury. Then do something more accomodating for the freight operators. Then do away with the whole track access charging philosophy, that Brussels imposed upon us, with their 1991 mandate to seperate train and track.

We can do this thanks to Brexit. And the UK no longer being part of the eu single market. The eu fourth railway package being the completion of the eu single market (for rail) and we are no longer bound by it.

When the OAO give up. The market for rail that has been found by the existing OAO and run with good passenger load factors, should be picked up by GBR and not abandoned.

Can you clarify what generally accepted definition of a ‘windfall tax’ you envisage?

Do you have a background in corporate finance, taxation accountancy or similar?

 

[The Planner]

The planes are non-stop.

Why shouldn't the trains be? There are plenty of other services available for people who want to take a stopper. So much more reassuring for people with luggage too.

Capacity is an an engineering problem, not a customer problem.

Its a money problem as well.

 

[Zomboid]

If the objective is to get rid of open access then that can simply be legislated. No need to invent convoluted and quite possibly illegal taxation schemes.

The political side of it would then come in to maintain an appropriate level of service to the places that lose their open access services.

 

[BlueLeanie]

If the objective is to get rid of open access then that can simply be legislated. No need to invent convoluted and quite possibly illegal taxation schemes.

It's not that simple.

It would be worldwide news if Sir Keir Starmer banned the "Harry Potter" (Jacobite) Train.

 

[Zomboid]

It's not that simple.

It would be worldwide news if Sir Keir Starmer banned the "Harry Potter" (Jacobite) Train.

That's one of many reasons I don't think it would happen, but the government could legislate to prevent OA passenger trains if they want.

Though didn't we come close to that recently because WCRC didn't fancy paying for door locking?

 

[JonathanH]

It would be worldwide news if Sir Keir Starmer banned the "Harry Potter" (Jacobite) Train.

How do you distinguish the Jacobite from the Scarborough Spa Express or Dalesman, which run less frequently but in consistent paths each time? The Jacobite is really just the limiting case of a "charter", running daily.

 

[HSTEd]

It's not that simple.

It would be worldwide news if Sir Keir Starmer banned the "Harry Potter" (Jacobite) Train.

Well as the Jacobite is probably one of the few truly profitable open access operations (once infrastructure is accounted for), it would might get taken over by GBR rather than axed.

EDIT:
It may not be truly profitable, but it probably comes closer than anything else.

 

[NCT]

I find the idea of ‘come to daddy or else’ deeply worrying.

 

[AlterEgo]

The planes are non-stop.

Why shouldn't the trains be?

Because trains do not serve a single passenger flow, unlike planes.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I think the answer would need to be a bit firmer than 'probably yes' for DfT. I'm not asking for 'show your workings' as I'm sure it'd be far too complicated to show on a forum, but could Network Grant and FTAC calculations be traced back to an increase in Open Access mileages?

I'm not talking about LNER's eroded premium - I don't think it's right for the government to maximise that number at all costs.

As for LRIC, I'm not sure I entirely agree that it should definitely fall on the consumer. If the M1 needs a more intensive capital renewal cycle than the M56 it's the taxpayers paying for both.

There is a case for charging what 'the market can bear' and that's if capacity is genuinely being exhausted. In that case DfT can simply instruct LNER to apply for more paths than exists on the ECML, then Network Rail would have to declare the infrastructure as Congested which would then hit everybody.

To be honest, in principle I don't disagree with reducing FTAC and putting more (or even everything) into VTAC. As long as it doesn't hinder the industry from pursuing genuine 'marginal revenue > marginal cost' initiatives.

No, you can’t trace Network Grant/FTAC back and compare it like that. The variables in infrastructure maintenance both year on year and regulatory period to regulatory period preclude that.

Logically if every operator only pays short run marginal charges, the long run incremental costs have to be paid for by someone else. The same issue applies for any additional freight.

So the Government then pays for it via Network Grant/FTAC.

On other poster’s point about heritage services, they are almost certainly all going to be treated like freight and will continue to only pay short run marginal costs, as now.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

If, say, all the OA on the ECML decided to cease operations, and LNER picked up the services, the moderation of competition elements would go, so stopping patterns could be regularised, paths regularised, and arguably it would release capacity from having a more consistent timetable.

 

[Brubulus]

If, say, all the OA on the ECML decided to cease operations, and LNER picked up the services, the moderation of competition elements would go, so stopping patterns could be regularised, paths regularised, and arguably it would release capacity from having a more consistent timetable.

So there would be the possibility of more than 8 long distance paths an hour on the ECML. If this is the case, there should be a change to policy around OA, where it should be required to cover equivalent to DfT lost income as track access charge - how much extra would LNER return to DfT by operating to Hull should be the same as long run cost charged to HT. This then limits financial loss to DfT substantially and primary financial loss is caused by lack of monopoly power over pricing on certain routes, which tends to be highly anti-customer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People that realise if their is a gap in the timetable and someone who wants to you use their own money to fill that gap, why should we stop them?

Because spare paths increase resilience. The WCML already falls over when someone sneezes on it; Lumo isn't going to make that better.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Then do away with the whole track access charging philosophy, that Brussels imposed upon us, with their 1991 mandate to separate train and track.

In fact, that mandate only said that the track and the trains should be accounted for separately; they did not mandate the creation of completely separate companies for the track and the trains - that was the choice of the Major Government and went far beyond what was actually required.

Open access does have a good role to play, though I would agree that the sudden plethora of new applications is somewhat eyebrow raising.

Another thing - prior to Brexit, we could access EU funding for infrastructure schemes. We've lost that valuable source of investment now ( and this aspect should probably have a separate thread if anyone wants to continue it ).

 

[NCT]

Because spare paths increase resilience. The WCML already falls over when someone sneezes on it; Lumo isn't going to make that better.

Which railway system carries more passengers and generates more revenue?

A 7tph railway with some hiccups or a 5tph one that runs perfectly?

 

[43074]

If, say, all the OA on the ECML decided to cease operations, and LNER picked up the services, the moderation of competition elements would go, so stopping patterns could be regularised, paths regularised, and arguably it would release capacity from having a more consistent timetable.

Could theoretically GBR instruct Hull Trains to have a certain stopping pattern south of Doncaster if it fits better with the overall pattern, as a condition to their access rights?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 22:19 ==

So there would be the possibility of more than 8 long distance paths an hour on the ECML. If this is the case, there should be a change to policy around OA, where it should be required to cover equivalent to DfT lost income as track access charge - how much extra would LNER return to DfT by operating to Hull should be the same as long run cost charged to HT. This then limits financial loss to DfT substantially and primary financial loss is caused by lack of monopoly power over pricing on certain routes, which tends to be highly anti-customer.

No there's no way you can get above 8 long distance paths per hour on the ECML as there aren't that many paths available over Welwyn Viaduct, and calling at Grantham, Newark and/or Retford costs paths on the 2 track section to Doncaster as well. Factor in freight as well on the Huntingdon to Fletton (Peterborough) section and running more than around 7tph is a struggle, as evidenced by the issues getting the December timetable to work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which railway system carries more passengers and generates more revenue?

A 7tph railway with some hiccups or a 5tph one that runs perfectly?

Depends on your train lengths and whether you have a captive market (commuters) or not.

 

[Stossgebet]

Can you clarify what generally accepted definition of a ‘windfall tax’ you envisage?

Do you have a background in corporate finance, taxation accountancy or similar?

No, i can't clarify, because i was making a general point. A comment. An idea. Not a legally water tight bill to put through parliament. Call it a windfall tax, or an additional tax with any title you care to give it. The recent supreme court judgment about the VAT on private schools, stated that the tax was disciminatory, and affects the human rights of some children, but held that it was the governments right to make that choice. The government had the right to balance the needs of different groups. I don't see how putting a prohibitive tax on a company getting in the way of a state run public service would be any different from a legal perspective. The government has the right to make such laws if it can get them voted through parliament. All that taking away OA does, is ask perpective passengers to use a GBR train, and maybe make a connection on their journey. In my opinion, it's for the holistic good of the entire railway operation and its structure.

As to my professional background. I am not a lawmaker or consultant, so my profession is irrelevant. And isn't it ironic that most lawmaking government ministers don't have any profession qualifications, knowledge or skills of the government departments they lead or vote laws about. I don't recall any experts in railway operations claiming that privatisation (and the structure imposed on the railway by lawmakers) was going to be a great thing for the railway. Yet it happened anyway. Because law makers can do what they do irrespective of the consequences. Fortuantely, this time, they are trying to repair previous law. They just don't seem to be doing enough or doing it with any urgency.

 

[stevieinselby]

Which railway system carries more passengers and generates more revenue?

A 7tph railway with some hiccups or a 5tph one that runs perfectly?

A 6tph one that has some resilience and enough to cope 95% of the time, but pushes what's possible a little bit...

 

[Clarence Yard]

Could theoretically GBR instruct Hull Trains to have a certain stopping pattern south of Doncaster if it fits better with the overall pattern, as a condition to their access rights.

NR could do that now, by invoking Part J of the Network Code - the “better use” provisions. That means you can alter or withdraw existing rights if a better proposition comes along. The disadvantaged operator gets compensation.

Arguably NR should have invoked Part J (for several operators) in good time for the December 2025 ECML recast but they messed that one up.

 

[Stossgebet]

In fact, that mandate only said that the track and the trains should be accounted for separately; they did not mandate the creation of completely separate companies for the track and the trains - that was the choice of the Major Government and went far beyond what was actually required.

Open access does have a good role to play, though I would agree that the sudden plethora of new applications is somewhat eyebrow raising.

Another thing - prior to Brexit, we could access EU funding for infrastructure schemes. We've lost that valuable source of investment now ( and this aspect should probably have a separate thread if anyone wants to continue it ).

Actually. That mandate, does legally bind the infrastructure operator to charge for use of the tracks.
And that's where the seperate accounts come in to play. It was always going to take a very long time to smash up the state railway monopolies. So having seperate accounts was the starting mechanism, the foundation, from which the train operations could be slowly and steadily (or rushed if you were a 1993 era tory) broken away from the vertically integrated monopoly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 22:48 ==

Actually. That mandate, does legally bind the infrastructure operator to charge for use of the tracks.
And that's where the seperate accounts come in to play. It was always going to take a very long time to smash up the state railway monopolies. So having seperate accounts was the starting mechanism, the foundation, from which the train operations could be slowly and steadily (or rushed if you were a 1993 era tory) broken away from the vertically integrated monopoly.

And it was also the mechanism by which open access operators would pay to get its non-discrimatory track access rights.

 

[weeklycommuter]

ORR published the letter, which it is wise to do for transparency having received it from DfT.

One thing I consider odd about the attached letter to the Office of Rail and Road from the Director-General for Rail Reform & Strategy at the Department for Transport is the marking OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE at the top and bottom of each page. I do not understand why this was done when the Office of Rail and Road would inevitably publish it on the World Wide Web with the following link.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025-06-20-Richard-Goodman-letter-to-ORR_Redacted.pdf

 

[Dr Hoo]

I loved the bit about:

"When fully operational, GBR will, in its capacity as ‘directing mind’,


have the ability to specify and coordinate services to maximise economic


benefits, provide new links for under-served communities, and more broadly


to develop the network’s passenger offer in a way that is not possible


currently."

If only the Secretary of State or other leader could say that GBR will be seeking to arrange its own new and additional through services between Worksop, Rochdale, Torbay, etc. and London (and any other routes, including some non-London ones) people might be a lot more enthusiastic about it. Until that time there will inevitably be an attraction of a current Open Access proposal apparently close at hand rather than a completely opaque GBR aspiration buried deep in a veritable hedgerow of very thorny bushes.

 

[eldomtom2]

For me the question is really whether or not GBR would use the open access paths. If they are then presumably whatever service they run using those paths will be whatever gets the highest ridership and revenue, and thus logically should be run instead of the OA service since it will benefit more people and require less subsidy.

 

[Sonik]

If only the Secretary of State or other leader could say that GBR will be seeking to arrange its own new and additional through services between Worksop, Rochdale, Torbay, etc. and London (and any other routes, including some non-London ones) people might be a lot more enthusiastic about it. Until that time there will inevitably be an attraction of a current Open Access proposal apparently close at hand rather than a completely opaque GBR aspiration buried deep in a veritable hedgerow of very thorny bushes.

I'm guessing they are keeping their powder dry, for the time that they need to do battle with the OAO's who will inevitably make waves using PR and sponsored proxies (e.g. newspapers) when they are actually forced out.

 

[Harpo]

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

Quite. Three previous incarnations binned off and no journey time gains offered by any of them then or now. It won’t pick up any who railhead at Stafford either. They’ve got a fast hourly journey.

 

[357]

Has LNER or anyone with authority ever actually said "If it wasn't for Open Access then we would love to use those paths for X"?

 

[weeklycommuter]

Which is one reason why the DfT is getting very excited. They don’t want to see any OA expansion and have their eyes fixed on substantially reducing OA in 2029 and forcing them to fold their operations into GBR. The charging regime is how they will do it and there is nothing that the OA operators can do it because it will be perfectly legal.

What civil servants in the DfT want is irrelevant as new legislation is required to change the current system and the details will be decided by MPs not civil servants at the Department for Transport who may no longer have jobs by 2029 with the planned Government cuts. Backbench Labour MPs representing red wall seats will not want to lose existing open access train services and MPs are also campaigning for new open access services such as WSMR. Meanwhile the Prime Minister's visit the Hitachi train factory at Newton Aycliffe shows that other parts of the Government and I expect backbench MPs too want the train orders from open access train operators to support jobs at British train factories.

The picture will be at lot clearer if and when the Office of Rail and Road makes and announces decisions on all the applications from open access operators for new train services on the East and West Coast Mainlines. I cannot see how the ORR can give the go ahead all three West Coast Mainline applications as there are clearly not enough paths. Unfortunately the ORR does not appear to have made any decisions at all in June 2025 as nothing has so far been announced.