Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

[357]

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

I find myself I have more space in Lumo airline seats than LNER!

I agree that if you want a table then Lumo probably isn't the best choice.

 

[43074]

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.

That's totally disingenuous as an argument, how would 5 trains per day each way in the timetable materially affect the deliverability or otherwise of that timetable given the number of issues with it? Huntingdon to Woodwalton 4 tracking (among other infrastructure upgrades) not going ahead and issues with freight pathing have been far more significant barriers to it going ahead.

 

[Clarence Yard]

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.

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.

It isn’t fair to say Lumo is almost entirely revenue abstractive. That is just your assertion because you don’t like OA. It has no basis in fact - I have dealt with that on another thread - and political pressure was not applied to grant it rights (not a licence).

You are absolutely correct that if OA was charged the full cost of its paths, they would fold. But that’s not the current system - everyone pays only marginal costs plus markups where the market can afford. It was done that way to encourage model shift to rail.

Your mention of CG and his assertion that GC were being charged less than GNER is useful because the Judge in the subsequent High Court Case found otherwise. GC and GNER were being charged on exactly the same basis.

The Fixed Track Access Charge was found to be an “artificial construct”, designed to flow residual funding monies (after Grant and Charges) from the DfT to NR. It was a form of laundering Grant, not a proper cost charge and TOCs were protected from the annual variations in FTAC, which could be huge either way.

In that Court Case it was stated that LRIC charging was preferred by the ORR but NR was then in no position to allocate its costs correctly. That position has now changed and in PR18 NR did a lot of work in allocating LRIC to Operator and Service Group. If the “market can bear” test is removed from the Regs by the forthcoming legislation, then LRIC charging (probably on a per train mile basis) could well be introduced in 2029.

In the meantime Lumo will shortly be paying more per train mile in ICC than LNER will be “paying” in FTAC! That shows how bonkers the system has become and how it badly needs revising so everyone is charged (or in the case of GBR allocated costs) on the same transparent basis.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's totally disingenuous as an argument, how would 5 trains per day each way in the timetable materially affect the deliverability or otherwise of that timetable given the number of issues with it? Huntingdon to Woodwalton 4 tracking (among other infrastructure upgrades) not going ahead and issues with freight pathing have been far more significant barriers to it going ahead.

Really?

Youll have to wait for my memoirs.

 

[43074]

Really?

Youll have to wait for my memoirs.

Those might be a bit biased towards an NR point of view though Not completely sure NR themselves are totally relaxed with the timetable going ahead given the performance risks attached.

"Freight" was a bit of a loose description on my part, but certainly the FOCs remain unhappy with the outcome, and I'm not sure omitting 5 trains a day each way, mostly at off peak times and with sub-optimal paths themselves, would have made that much of a difference to the overall structure of the timetable and how freight fit around the long distance pattern. Especially given the number of freight paths which at various stages couldn't be accommodated.

 

[vuzzeho]

Most people do not use trains. Only a very small minority of people regularly use trains.

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

 

[HSTEd]

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

We have National Transportation Survey statistics for England from 2023.

The response for frequency of Surface Rail use for that year was as follows (from NTS0313):

• three or more times per week - 5%
• once or twice per week - 4%
• less than once a week, more than once or twice a month - 4%
• once or twice a month - 11%
• less than once or twice per month, more than once or twice per year - 16%
• once or twice per year - 18%
• less than once or twice per year - 42%

Whilst most people do occasionally use the surface railway, the fraction that use it regularly is rather small.

The fraction of people who use the surface railway three or more times per year is 40%
The fraction of people who use the surface railway at least once a month is 24%

EDIT:

Given that the mean number of journeys per person (in the UK) per year on the National Rail system is ~25, rail journeys are clearly very highly concentrated in a small portion of the population.

 

[The Planner]

What? That's not true.

According to Inequality in Transport, in 2012 (so, outdated, but it's almost certainly risen by then), 58% of the population used the railway. Most of those users used it more than monthly. The ORR has data also suggesting rail travel is very popular here: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

On top of that, a 2018 DfT report found that in February 2018, 64% of UK adults had used a train at least once in the past 12 months.

I don't know where the idea that most people don't use trains came from.

They said "regularly". If you wanted to generally mess about with statistics, the ORR page shows that 2019/20 Q3 461,207,500 journeys were made, so 12 weeks and 38,500,000 per week . If you assumed, rightly or wrongly, that people still working 5 days a week made 10 journeys a week, that is 3.85 million people. Google says GB population is 68 million, so 5.6% of people.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Given that most journeys by rail are within London and the South East I’m not sure that this is relevant to open access over longer distances on main lines. (Yes, I know about Heathrow Express.)

It’s probably fair to say that Open Access has stimulated trips, largely to/from London in Hull, Hartlepool, Halifax and even Morpeth, etc.. However these are likely to be on the occasional trip rather than regular commuting.

 

[ocean_life]

Genius, Not!

So anyone who wants a connecting ticket using both GBR and an OA operator would have to buy two tickets. How user friendly!

Talk about reverting to the (worst aspects) of the 19th century railway.

They wouldn't need to buy 2 tickets.

In Italy if you buy a ticket for a journey that involves an OA operator and Trenitalia then you will be given 2 tickets. One for the OA service (e.g Italo) and one for the Trenitalia service.

 

[357]

They wouldn't need to buy 2 tickets.

In Italy if you buy a ticket for a journey that involves an OA operator and Trenitalia then you will be given 2 tickets. One for the OA service (e.g Italo) and one for the Trenitalia service.

So you've bought two tickets then.

 

[A S Leib]

So you've bought two tickets then.

How are passenger rights in the case of disruption affected due to having two tickets rather than one?

 

[357]

How are passenger rights in the case of disruption affected due to having two tickets rather than one?

In the UK the train/s must stop at the station where the split is made, and it will class as a through journey.

I have no idea about Italy - what I do know however is that it is absolutely ridiculous to complicate journeys, complicate ticketing even further and potentially reduce passenger rights, just because some members of an internet forum don't like the colour of some trains on the network.

 

[ocean_life]

So you've bought two tickets then.

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

 

[Zomboid]

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

Similar to connecting flights in my experience, you get two or more boarding passes if your journey is in sections.

 

[357]

No, you have been given 2 tickets on the same transaction. Passengers don't care to the fact there are 2 tickets or different operators, only that they are valid for the journey that they need to make.

If they aren't treated as a through journey then they will.