Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

[Bletchleyite]

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.

It'd be fairly easy to do.

Freight = allowed, subject to passenger paths not being needed that conflict - for instance I have a big issue with the way freight wastes paths over Shap crawling to the summit with a single 66 rather than an electric locomotive or two 66s, and I would get strict on that - the rule in my book would be that if the train when fully functional physically cannot maintain the lower of linespeed or its own specified maximum speed then it should not be allowed on the network at all.

Passenger services = allowed, subject to being contracted or operated on behalf of a state body of some kind and subject to GBR not requiring the paths.

Charters = allowed, again subject to the paths not being required by GBR*. A charter being defined as a service that:
1. Does not operate over the same route more than ten times per rolling 12 month period (you could use any number instead of 10, but the key is that it's not a timetabled service which would typically operate at least daily);
2. Does not sell tickets via Rail Settlement Plan, nor accept Rail Settlement Plan tickets.

* e.g. there aren't any to Windermere despite this being nominally attractive because it could only be done by cancelling the service train for a couple of hours. Though you could permit it where the charter took up the service train's path with the same calling points and accepted the service train's tickets.

That do?

 

[Tetchytyke]

for the SoS to undermine the ORR's independence isn't just incompetent but also worrying

There is no such thing as an independent regulator. All regulators are political entities and, as such, give due regard to political objectives when carrying out their regulatory duties.

It's no different to Reeves telling the Financial Conduct Authority that they've been a bit too heavy-handed recently and to cut it out. Now the FCA have shredded huge sections of their rulebook. Weird.

Or the government firing the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority because he was a bit too keen to clamp down on monopolies and rather upset Microsoft. So they've got someone from Amazon in instead.

Of course any regulator will continue to make decisions in accordance with the law, but politicians are the ones to guide how any discretion should be exercised. If the regulator doesn't agree with the politician then the politician will just get a new regulator.

Anyway, as for OA operators, my view is very simple: OA operators which genuinely create or expand a market (e.g. Hull Trains) are absolutely fine. OA operators which add nothing and are fundamentally revenue-abstractive (e.g. Lumo) are not acceptable. Grand Central are a bit harder to categorise, but take their York and Doncaster stops off them and we'll quickly see whether their business model is revenue abstractive or not.

 

[The Planner]

It'd be fairly easy to do.

Freight = allowed, subject to passenger paths not being needed that conflict - for instance I have a big issue with the way freight wastes paths over Shap crawling to the summit with a single 66 rather than an electric locomotive or two 66s, and I would get strict on that - the rule in my book would be that if the train when fully functional physically cannot maintain the lower of linespeed or its own specified maximum speed then it should not be allowed on the network at all.

Passenger services = allowed, subject to being contracted or operated on behalf of a state body of some kind and subject to GBR not requiring the paths.

Charters = allowed, again subject to the paths not being required by GBR*. A charter being defined as a service that:
1. Does not operate over the same route more than ten times per rolling 12 month period (you could use any number instead of 10, but the key is that it's not a timetabled service which would typically operate at least daily);
2. Does not sell tickets via Rail Settlement Plan, nor accept Rail Settlement Plan tickets.

* e.g. there aren't any to Windermere despite this being nominally attractive because it could only be done by cancelling the service train for a couple of hours. Though you could permit it where the charter took up the service train's path with the same calling points and accepted the service train's tickets.

That do?

90% of freight goes then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

90% of freight goes then.

If the freight is only economic because it runs at a snail's pace eating paths that could be better used, then let it go. Northern isn't allowed to send 75mph DMUs to Windermere any more, and similarly freight should not be allowed to send underpowered trains that can't maintain line speed out either.

 

[HSTEd]

90% of freight goes then.

Or more likely, comes to the table with the government to make a deal for direct revenue support.

I think the way freight is handled currently has major externalities that need to be remedied.

 

[The Planner]

Northern isn't allowed to send 75mph DMUs to Windermere any more, and similarly freight should not be allowed to send underpowered trains that can't maintain line speed out either.

Says who? If they fit then there you need good reason to say no, hence the OAO rejections confirmed today. Heavy freight will lose speed going up gradients, but considering that a substantial amount of time they end up last on the graph they still won't get rejected if they fit.

 

[Zomboid]

If there's an aspiration to run more of it then they should be required to provide trains with a minimum TE/Weight ratio. You might get two freights into the path of one that way.

If that means they need to double head then they can come to government and make a case to get support in delivering the policy aim.

Though if they're not getting in the way of another train that someone actually wants to run then it's hard to justify making that demand.

 

[NCT]

It'd be fairly easy to do.

Freight = allowed, subject to passenger paths not being needed that conflict - for instance I have a big issue with the way freight wastes paths over Shap crawling to the summit with a single 66 rather than an electric locomotive or two 66s, and I would get strict on that - the rule in my book would be that if the train when fully functional physically cannot maintain the lower of linespeed or its own specified maximum speed then it should not be allowed on the network at all.

Passenger services = allowed, subject to being contracted or operated on behalf of a state body of some kind and subject to GBR not requiring the paths.

Charters = allowed, again subject to the paths not being required by GBR*. A charter being defined as a service that:
1. Does not operate over the same route more than ten times per rolling 12 month period (you could use any number instead of 10, but the key is that it's not a timetabled service which would typically operate at least daily);
2. Does not sell tickets via Rail Settlement Plan, nor accept Rail Settlement Plan tickets.

* e.g. there aren't any to Windermere despite this being nominally attractive because it could only be done by cancelling the service train for a couple of hours. Though you could permit it where the charter took up the service train's path with the same calling points and accepted the service train's tickets.

That do?

On the point I was directly responding to, Hull Trains Ltd in its current form and a hypothetical City of Hull owned operator would be treated the same under company law. When you have equal treatment under company law but different treatments under railway law it just gets messy - that's my 'good law' point.

When Grand Central provides an additional opportunity to travel between London and York (approx) every 2 hours passengers benefit from that increased frequency, and the ORCATS allocation (crudely) reflect that some Inter-available passengers WILL get those trains. Why shouldn't someone on an London - Thirsk ticket be denied an LNER - TPE itinerary in between the Grand Central trains? Do you really believe the state knows best and passengers shall not benefit from additional frequencies?

There is no such thing as an independent regulator. All regulators are political entities and, as such, give due regard to political objectives when carrying out their regulatory duties.

It's no different to Reeves telling the Financial Conduct Authority that they've been a bit too heavy-handed recently and to cut it out. Now the FCA have shredded huge sections of their rulebook. Weird.

Or the government firing the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority because he was a bit too keen to clamp down on monopolies and rather upset Microsoft. So they've got someone from Amazon in instead.

Of course any regulator will continue to make decisions in accordance with the law, but politicians are the ones to guide how any discretion should be exercised. If the regulator doesn't agree with the politician then the politician will just get a new regulator.

Anyway, as for OA operators, my view is very simple: OA operators which genuinely create or expand a market (e.g. Hull Trains) are absolutely fine. OA operators which add nothing and are fundamentally revenue-abstractive (e.g. Lumo) are not acceptable. Grand Central are a bit harder to categorise, but take their York and Doncaster stops off them and we'll quickly see whether their business model is revenue abstractive or not.

This is a brazen attack on separation of powers. For the record I don't agree with the government's heavy handed approach to the FCA and CMA.

As far as Open Access is concerned the Railway Act is pretty prescriptive in what's allowed and what isn't. You are suggesting that the executive has a special right to interpret the law that no other person or body has. A Labour government is not the kind I would usually expect to preside over the Orbanisation of the British state.

 

[HSTEd]

On the point I was directly responding to, Hull Trains Ltd in its current form and a hypothetical City of Hull owned operator would be treated the same under company law. When you have equal treatment under company law but different treatments under railway law it just gets messy - that's my 'good law' point.

Just as the Railways Act 1993 forbade train services being operated by 'emanations of the Crown', it is presumably possible to use whether an operator is an 'emanation of the Crown' to allow differentiation between them.

Personally, I don't think it matters very much which of the many arms of the state operates which particular part of the railway apparatus.

When Grand Central provides an additional opportunity to travel between London and York (approx) every 2 hours passengers benefit from that increased frequency, and the ORCATS allocation (crudely) reflect that some Inter-available passengers WILL get those trains. Why shouldn't someone on an London - Thirsk ticket be denied an LNER - TPE itinerary in between the Grand Central trains? Do you really believe the state knows best and passengers shall not benefit from additional frequencies?

Ultimately the state is paying more than the passengers of the railway, so yes.
Grand Central does not pay the true cost of the infrastructure it uses, and I don't see any reason to compel a state operator to cooperate with them in any case.

 

[NCT]

Just as the Railways Act 1993 forbade train services being operated by 'emanations of the Crown', it is presumably possible to use whether an operator is an 'emanation of the Crown' to allow differentiation between them.

Personally, I don't think it matters very much which of the many arms of the state operates which particular part of the railway apparatus.

I'm not sure Emanations of the Crown includes a government owned or other public sector Ltd Company. Otherwise DOR or OLR wouldn't have existed and the current OLR franchises would all be breaking the law.

Ultimately the state is paying more than the passengers of the railway, so yes.
Grand Central does not pay the true cost of the infrastructure it uses, and I don't see any reason to compel a state operator to cooperate with them in any case.

I am yet to see a convincing argument that the existence of Grand Central causes a long term increase in LNER's FTAC and the NR grant (I accept it wouldn't come through direct calculations, but even as a theoretical point it feels somewhat weak), or that increases in NR's LRIC is any worse than the M1 having a more intensive renewal cycle than the M56.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure Emanations of the Crown includes a government owned or other public sector Ltd Company. Otherwise DOR or OLR wouldn't have existed and the current OLR franchises would all be breaking the law.

The Railway Act Language banned a whole bunch of bodies, including emanations of the crown and other public bodies from being franchisees.
It appears the operator of last resort is not considered to be a franchisee for these purposes.

Nevertheless, similar language could presumably be adapted to prohibit private sector operators.

And that part of the Railways Act 1993 has long since been swept away, so is of no effect today.

I am yet to see a convincing argument that the existence of Grand Central causes a long term increase in LNER's FTAC and the NR grant (I accept it wouldn't come through direct calculations, but even as a theoretical point it feels somewhat weak), or that increases in NR's LRIC is any worse than the M1 having a more intensive renewal cycle than the M56.

They consume capacity that has to be paid for through renewals that could potentially be avoided or would be less expensive if they did not operate.
Open access operators should pay way more than marginal costs because the trains they operate are not using marginal capacity - if they were then they would have no exclusionary right to the paths. Nor would they have a right to influence railway operations to ensure the paths remained available.


Track access charges should reflect the true, fully burdened, cost of operations, which means they should raise approximately quadrouple what they do now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is a brazen attack on separation of powers.

No it isn’t; regulators are part of the executive, just as the DWP or whoever are. If someone disagrees with a decision of a regulator then they can take it to the judiciary for a determination.

I don’t have an issue with regulators taking direction from political leaders. That’s how government works. It’s fair to say that Lumo- which is almost entirely revenue abstractive, no matter how hard the ORR tried to argue otherwise- only got their OA licences in 2016 and 2024 because of similar political pressure from the other side of the spectrum.

You are suggesting that the executive has a special right to interpret the law that no other person or body has.

Yes, they do. Because they do. That’s precisely how it works.

Do you really believe the state knows best and passengers shall not benefit from additional frequencies?

Taxpayers are subsidising the railway. It is therefore a nonsense to have the current situation where OA operators are also subsidised by the taxpayer to undercut the service subsidised by the taxpayer.

If OA operators are charged the full, non-subsidised, cost of their paths then fine. But they are not and, more importantly, if they were then business cases for Lumo and Grand Central would go straight out of the window.

As for Grand Central’s revenue abstraction from York, there is a very good reason why GNER were so very angry when GC’s OA application was granted in 2006. As Christopher Garnett pointed out, GC were being charged less than GNER and were using that discount to undercut GNER. Not much has changed since 2006; Garnett was right then and the same argument applies now.

Hull Trains are the only OA operator who aren’t mostly revenue abstractive, and that’s only because GNER didn’t particularly want to serve Hull. The rest have all been mostly revenue abstractive in one way or another. Wrexham and Shropshire was probably the most egregious.

 

[NCT]

No it isn’t; regulators are part of the executive, just as the DWP or whoever are. If someone disagrees with a decision of a regulator then they can take it to the judiciary for a determination.

I don’t have an issue with regulators taking direction from political leaders. That’s how government works. It’s fair to say that Lumo- which is almost entirely revenue abstractive, no matter how hard the ORR tried to argue otherwise- only got their OA licences in 2016 and 2024 because of similar political pressure from the other side of the spectrum.


Yes, they do. Because they do. That’s precisely how it works.


Taxpayers are subsidising the railway. It is therefore a nonsense to have the current situation where OA operators are also subsidised by the taxpayer to undercut the service subsidised by the taxpayer.

If OA operators are charged the full, non-subsidised, cost of their paths then fine. But they are not and, more importantly, if they were then business cases for Lumo and Grand Central would go straight out of the window.

As for Grand Central’s revenue abstraction from York, there is a very good reason why GNER were so very angry when GC’s OA application was granted in 2006. As Christopher Garnett pointed out, GC were being charged less than GNER and were using that discount to undercut GNER. Not much has changed since 2006; Garnett was right then and the same argument applies now.

Hull Trains are the only OA operator who aren’t mostly revenue abstractive, and that’s only because GNER didn’t particularly want to serve Hull. The rest have all been mostly revenue abstractive in one way or another. Wrexham and Shropshire was probably the most egregious.

Regulators are a bit quasi-judicial.

If the government wants to change the law it can signal it and give the process the space to go through parliament. While that's happening the government should not try to influence live cases. Alexander's letter to the ORR was not appropriate and the ORR should not have had to state its decisions this week were not affected by the government's letter.

Pre-Covid VTEC / East Coast was generate such levels of premium that it (nearly) covered the (allocated) Network Grant. Whether or not the Network Grant and FTAC were properly calibrated the government was over-extracting operational profit at a level that was simply immoral. Open Access driving yields down driving state profit down for the benefit of passengers is entirely the right outcome. If the government wants to raise revenue it should do it through transparent taxation.

LNER trains are full despite its stunt of replacing Off-Peak tickets with more expensive Advance / 70-minute Flex tickets. It has no business of accusing LUMO of abstraction when LUMO is carrying passengers that wouldn't otherwise have fitted on LNER services and LNER (let's say DfT) has no interest in providing that capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

LNER trains are full despite its stunt of replacing Off-Peak tickets with more expensive Advance / 70-minute Flex tickets. It has no business of accusing LUMO of abstraction when LUMO is carrying passengers that wouldn't otherwise have fitted on LNER services and LNER (let's say DfT) has no interest in providing that capacity.

We don’t know that as it is an alternative history. If the lumo paths hadn’t been approved it is quite conceivable that the ECML timetable recast would have been implemented before this year with additional servcies and seats provided between London and Edinburgh. Arguably more seats than are provided now.

Another alternative is that without lumo LNER fares would be higher* and thus more revenue to them from the same number of passengers. That is still abstraction.

* As it happens, the determination of fares levels London - Edinburgh is a mixed bag of capacity provision by LNER, lumo, easyjet and BA plus the upper limit of regulated rail fares. IMHO the airlines have quite a big effect on this, and I’m not so sure that the absence of lumo would make that much difference to overall fare levels.

 

[NCT]

We don’t know that as it is an alternative history. If the lumo paths hadn’t been approved it is quite conceivable that the ECML timetable recast would have been implemented before this year with additional servcies and seats provided between London and Edinburgh. Arguably more seats than are provided now.

Another alternative is that without lumo LNER fares would be higher* and thus more revenue to them from the same number of passengers. That is still abstraction.

* As it happens, the determination of fares levels London - Edinburgh is a mixed bag of capacity provision by LNER, lumo, easyjet and BA plus the upper limit of regulated rail fares. IMHO the airlines have quite a big effect on this, and I’m not so sure that the absence of lumo would make that much difference to overall fare levels.

Well, LUMO got there first. From my limited interation LUMO isn't a major factor in ESG's timetable difficulties. Much of it is LNER's own timetable structure, then freight, then shape of Open Access operator path.

In the context of government over-extracting operational profit, abstraction through driving down yields is good. Government shouldn't get out of paying Network Grant.

Looking at ORR data, Grand Central, Hull Trains and LUMO made profits of between ~ 5% and 40% (Hull Train lowest LUMO highest) in their best recent years. Even if VTAC were recalibrated to include LRIC (which an associated reduction in LNER's FTACT), I suspect the OAs can absorb it. Given the capacity constrained nature of the whole LNER Hull Trains should still be able to keep head above water with some upward yield adjustments.

 

[HSTEd]

Well, LUMO got there first. From my limited interation LUMO isn't a major factor in ESG's timetable difficulties. Much of it is LNER's own timetable structure, then freight, then shape of Open Access operator path.

In the context of government over-extracting operational profit, abstraction through driving down yields is good. Government shouldn't get out of paying Network Grant.

So it is immoral for a railway to cover its own costs?
Taxpayers should be required to subsidise the likes of Lumo, an operator over which it has little policy control?

The network grant is merely one of the implicit and explicit subsidies provided to the rail industry by the state.

Looking at ORR data, Grand Central, Hull Trains and LUMO made profits of between ~ 5% and 40% (Hull Train lowest LUMO highest) in their best recent years. Even if VTAC were recalibrated to include LRIC (which an associated reduction in LNER's FTACT), I suspect the OAs can absorb it. Given the capacity constrained nature of the whole LNER Hull Trains should still be able to keep head above water with some upward yield adjustments.

Track access revenue would quadrouple if the railway was paid for by track access charges

That would put LUmo from an operational surplus of around £22.9m to an operational deficit of around £13m.

They'd have to increase their fare income by over 25% just to claw back to operational breakeven.
I am very skeptical they could do that easily, given that if they could do that they already would have done.

 

[NCT]

Track access revenue would quadrouple if the railway was paid for by track access charges

That would put LUmo from an operational surplus of around £22.9m to an operational deficit of around £13m.

They'd have to increase their fare income by over 25% just to claw back to operational breakeven.
I am very skeptical they could do that easily, given that if they could do that they already would have done.

Nobody is proposing having the railway entirely paid for by Track Access Charges. The state should pay for the fixed infrastructure cost, otherwise the railway is being put at a direct disadvantage to road. The only debate really is whether LRIC should go into VTAC.

 

[Killingworth]

We don’t know that as it is an alternative history. If the lumo paths hadn’t been approved it is quite conceivable that the ECML timetable recast would have been implemented before this year with additional servcies and seats provided between London and Edinburgh. Arguably more seats than are provided now.

Another alternative is that without lumo LNER fares would be higher* and thus more revenue to them from the same number of passengers. That is still abstraction.

* As it happens, the determination of fares levels London - Edinburgh is a mixed bag of capacity provision by LNER, lumo, easyjet and BA plus the upper limit of regulated rail fares. IMHO the airlines have quite a big effect on this, and I’m not so sure that the absence of lumo would make that much difference to overall fare levels.

Just to see the full picture there are also coaches competing on price. It takes a long time, but many are fully booked days in advance. Until he got a car my grandson used them from Newcastle to London and found them more comfortable than Lumo, his second choice for speed.

 

[NCT]

A coach only has about 50 seats. A coach running once an hour is but a rounding error in railway loadings.

 

[HSTEd]

Nobody is proposing having the railway entirely paid for by Track Access Charges. The state should pay for the fixed infrastructure cost, otherwise the railway is being put at a direct disadvantage to road.

Road users pay more than double most sensible estimates of the cost of the road system.
Most estimates run to about £12bn a year for the road system, road fuel duty and road fuel VAT income run well over £30bn a year. (EDIT: Plus another £10bn in Vehicle Excise Duty)

Direct subsidies to the rail industry are comparable to the entire cost of the road system despite the road having an order of magnitude more traffic.

Subsidies to the rail industry are fine as far as it goes, but we shouldn't pretend its about "levelling the playing field" - we pay subsidies because we believe the railway to be socially and economically useful to the state and the public generally.

 

[Tetchytyke]

generate such levels of premium that it (nearly) covered the (allocated) Network Grant

However it didn’t cover its share the Network Grant. Not in GNER days, not in NXEC days, not in EC days, not in VTEC days, and not now.

As I said- and as you have completely ignored as it doesn’t fit your narrative- Christopher Garnett was saying this was wrong as long ago as 2006. And that was when GNER were both putting top dollar into the Treasury coffers and making a profit for themselves.

Government shouldn't get out of paying Network Grant.

Eh?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 22:34 ==

Road users pay more than double most sensible estimates of the cost of the road system.
Most estimates run to about £12bn a year for the road system, road fuel duty and road fuel VAT income run well over £30bn a year.

Indeed.

And most taxpayers don’t use the railway, and certainly don’t use the ECML.

Maybe the taxpayer should subsidise socially necessary railway journeys. I don’t see how anyone can sensibly extrapolate from that that the taxpayer should subsidise a private company to undercut the state company running that socially necessary service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 22:42 ==

* As it happens, the determination of fares levels London - Edinburgh is a mixed bag of capacity provision by LNER, lumo, easyjet and BA plus the upper limit of regulated rail fares. IMHO the airlines have quite a big effect on this, and I’m not so sure that the absence of lumo would make that much difference to overall fare levels.

I think both operators charge the maximum that their market will bear. Lumo’s existence may take the edge off what LNER can charge but the effect will be negligible. Where the revenue abstraction occurs is that Lumo takes passengers who would otherwise be on LNER; they don’t bring anything new to the table.

At least Grand Central offered new services to new destinations, even if the services were largely underwritten by the ORCATS raids at York and Doncaster. What do Lumo offer? A slightly crappier version of LNER’s IET?

 

[Bald Rick]

Just to see the full picture there are also coaches competing on price.

True, but as their capcity is somewhat limited, and their journey time somewhat, err, uncompetitive with the other modes, it’s really in a market segment to itself.

 

[Killingworth]

A coach only has about 50 seats. A coach running once an hour is but a rounding error in railway loadings.

However the bus and coach industry could run coaches every 10 minutes point to point if the price was right - and the public didn't prefer a quicker train journey. Which is why Lumo is doing so well.

 

[NCT]

However it didn’t cover its share the Network Grant. Not in GNER days, not in NXEC days, not in EC days, not in VTEC days, and not now.

As I said- and as you have completely ignored as it doesn’t fit your narrative- Christopher Garnett was saying this was wrong as long ago as 2006. And that was when GNER were both putting top dollar into the Treasury coffers and making a profit for themselves.

When the passenger is paying the lion's share of the Network Grant the passenger is overpaying. The general population that benefits from the positive externalities of the railway is underpaying.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The following letter of reply from the Office of Rail and Road Chief Executive to the letter referenced in post #1 from the Director General for Rail Reform & Strategy at the Department for Transport shows clearly that the ORR is not impressed with the letter from this DfT civil servant.

The ORR published both the DfT letter and their reply on their website and make clear that any further correspondence from the DfT will also be published on their website. The ORR also make clear that making the changes demanded by this letter from the DfT would put the delivery of the December 2025 East Coast Mainline timetable at risk.

The December 2025 East Coast Mainline timetable, which seeks to deliver the benefits of several billion pounds of taxpayer funded investment, has already been delayed by several years and was only finally given the go ahead by the Rail Minister late last year.

I assume that any DfT civil servant who does anything that puts the successful delivery of the December 2025 East Coast Mainline timetable at risk would likely be invited for tea and biscuits with the Rail Minister so I am not expecting the DfT civil servant to write any more letters to the ORR by Monday 7 July.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-07-03-open-access-letter-to-dft.pdf

ORR is currently at an advanced stage of considering numerous interacting applications from DfT operators, freight operators, open access operators and others for access to the West and East Coast Main Lines. Many of these applications support the major timetable change planned for December 2025, which Ministers are anxious to see introduced.

As you will be aware from our recently published decision letter, it was not necessary for the Board to consider the Secretary of State’s funds when deciding recent open access applications for access to the WCML, which turned on capacity and performance factors.

However, our view is that developing, carrying out, consulting on and applying the new analysis proposed in your 20 June letter before finalising any further open access decisions risks delaying all our current planned access decisions affecting all passenger and freight operators on the East Coast. Such a delay would require extensive work at pace by industry to put in place temporary access rights instead to ensure the planned December 2025 timetable can be operated, creating a significant administrative burden and introducing avoidable risk to the timetable’s implementation.

To avoid this, we intend to proceed with our decision-making on five open access applications from Grand Central, Hull Trains (two applications) and Lumo (two applications) on the East Coast Main Line without adjusting our established approach to assessing the impact on funds available to Secretary of State.

In doing so, ORR will continue carefully to consider the impact of open access decisions on the funds available to the Secretary of State. I would be happy to develop options for further strengthening or clarifying that approach, in consultation with DfT and other stakeholders, to support our consideration of applications to introduce new open access services during 2026 and subsequently.

We therefore intend to proceed with decision making on the East Coast Main Line in line with our published policy unless you write by Monday 7 July to ask us to delay the process. I have placed a copy of this letter on ORR’s website, and will publish any reply alongside it.

 

[357]

Another alternative is that without lumo LNER fares would be higher* and thus more revenue to them from the same number of passengers. That is still abstraction.

It's incorrect to assume if prices were higher than the same number of passengers would still use rail and pay a higher fare.

A slightly crappier version of LNER’s IET?

The seats are much nicer and far more comfortable. When I can, I use Lumo purely for the seats.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's incorrect to assume if prices were higher than the same number of passengers would still use rail and pay a higher fare.

Fair enough. It’s also incorrect to assume that they wouldn’t. It will, of course, vary by market.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The following letter of reply from the Office of Rail and Road Chief Executive to the letter referenced in post #1 from the Director General for Rail Reform & Strategy at the Department for Transport shows clearly that the ORR is not impressed with the letter from this DfT civil servant.

All just posturing. Presumably to try and prevent any unsuccessful applicants from litigating on the basis that there was undue influence on the ORR or that the goalposts had unfairly changed.

It would very very unusual if a senior DfT official had sent such a letter without the knowledge of their minister.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The seats are much nicer and far more comfortable. When I can, I use Lumo purely for the seats.

The actual seats are nicer but it's very high density and feels like a cattle wagon.

 

[Tetchytyke]

When the passenger is paying the lion's share of the Network Grant the passenger is overpaying. The general population that benefits from the positive externalities of the railway is underpaying.

It’s the age old argument, should the state subsidise the railways or should the users of the railways pay for them.

The general population doesn’t really benefit much from the railway. Most people do not use trains. Only a very small minority of people regularly use trains.

However my argument isn’t that the state shouldn’t subsidise the railways. My point is that I don’t think the state should be subsidising a highly profitable private company to compete directly on price against the state-subsidised operator. It’s just pseudo free-market nonsense that costs the taxpayer more money.